Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FALKIRK BURGH EXTENSION &C. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Falkirk Burgh Extension &c., "presented by Mr. McNeil; read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Government Departments (Expenditure)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General what amount of money was expended in telephone calls by Government Departments in the years 1947, 1948 and 1949, respectively.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): The recorded values of inland telephone calls made by Government Departments were as follows: 1947–48, £5,470,000; 1948–49, £4,880,000; 1949–50, £4,810,000.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the extent of these calls, will the hon. Gentleman say what steps have been taken to secure economy within the Departments, and would he agree that this extensive use of the service is a reason why ordinary people cannot get a telephone?

Mr. Hobson: That is another question.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Minister telling the House, and is it correct, that every telephone call made by a Government Department is noted and priced?

Mr. Hobson: That is implied in neither the Question nor the answer.

Weather Forecasts

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made on the development of facilities for telephone subscribers to dial WEA in order to receive weather forecasts; what will be the cost to his Department; and by what date will they be provided.

Mr. Hobson: In view of the heavy demands on the limited national resources, my right hon. Friend is consulting with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on the question whether this new service can be provided in present circumstances.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this matter has been under development for a large number of years and that considerable progress has been made on the equipment? Would it not be a good asset to this country to continue as we have gone so far, in view of the fact that foreign countries have had this facility for more than 14 years?

Mr. Hobson: There are very few foreign countries that have this service, but I agree with the premise of the question. and we will do what we can.

Mr. Erroll: While awaiting this service, will the Minister re-introduce the Airmet service, which was of such value to many organisations and people?

Mr. Hobson: No, Sir, for reasons which were indicated in an Adjournment debate two months ago.

Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Postmaster-General the date on which the new telephone exchange will operate in Cardiff.

Mr. Hobson: About the end of this year.

Mr. Thomas: I am much obliged.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Post master-General whether he is aware of the growing waiting list for telephones in the Cardiff area; and how this list compares with those of other cities of comparable size to Cardiff.

Mr. Hobson: The proportion of waiting applicants at Cardiff is at present somewhat higher than at other towns of similar size. This is due to the diversion of engineering staff to work on the new


automatic exchange. There should be substantial improvement when the new exchange is opened.

Bookmakers

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Postmaster-General how many telephones were supplied to bookmakers during 1950.

Mr. Hobson: This information is not readily available, as our records do not distinguish between different types of business-rate subscribers.

Mr. Hynd: Has the attention of my hon. Friend been drawn to a Press advertisement by a West End bookmaker, who says that he has 200 telephones, manned by an efficient staff, and to that of a City bookmaker, who claims that he has 100 lines? In view of those facts, will he please decrease the supply of telephones to bookmakers and increase the supply to my constituents?

Mr. Hobson: The hon. Member is giving information, not asking for it.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency—and I have written to his right hon. Friend about this— ministers of religion are still waiting for telephones? Should they not have them rather than bookmakers?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Many are called, but few are chosen.

Mr. Hobson: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have details of that position, I shall be only too happy to look into the matter.

Mr. Hargreaves: Is it the policy of my hon. Friend's Department to supply telephones to bookmakers rather than to other commercial or private interests?

Mr. Hobson: That matter is not in the Question.

Officer, Southampton (Motor Car)

Mr. Donner: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a lady, representing the Post Office, Southampton, is touring the countryside in a chauffeur-driven car for the sole purpose of asking telephone subscribers whether they have any complaints; and whether he will stop this waste of public money.

Mr. Hobson: The officer was testing the automatic service from subscribers' premises in a very scattered rural area. Use of an official car was authorised exceptionally in this case, because of lack of public transport and of the wide area to be covered.

Mr. Donner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this lady was touring the St. Mary Bourne district, which is between 30 and 40 miles from Southampton, and that she stated specifically to my constituents that she was only inquiring whether they had any complaints to make? Would it not be more sensible and cheaper to let subscribers make their own complaints?

Mr. Hobson: No, I do not think it would. The reason why the official car was used was because of the lack of transport facilities in this scattered rural area.

Mr. Donner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is quite misinformed, that the lady in question fully explained the reason for her visit and that she made the specific statement that she was only visiting to ascertain whether subscribers had any complaints to make?

Mr. Ralph Morley: Is it not a fact that the services rendered by this lady fully justified the expenditure incurred?

Mr. Hobson: There is no doubt about that. It is part of the arrangement to make the telephone service in that area more efficient?

Captain Crookshank: Would it not have been cheaper and simpler if the lady had just rung up the subscribers and asked them if there were any complaints?

Mr. Hobson: I am surprised at the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asking that question in view of the fact that he was once Postmaster-General.

Captain Crookshank: That is exactly why I asked the question.

Blackburn

Mr. Fort: asked the Postmaster-General whether the telephone facilities in the Blackburn area will be increased sufficiently in 1951 to bring the supply of telephones expressed as a percentage of the demand for them in that area into line with the corresponding percentage in other areas in the North-Western Region.

Mr. Hobson: Widely varying conditions make it impracticable to regulate development of the telephone service in different areas on any general percentage basis such as that suggested. Subject, however, to the needs of the defence programme, my right hon. Friend expects that the relative rate of supply in the Blackburn area will be increased this year.

Mr. Fort: Relative to what will the rate of supply of telephones be increased?

Mr. Hobson: Relative to the needs of the surrounding districts and towns in Lancashire.

Mr. Fort: Why not relative to the disparity between the Blackburn area and other areas?

Mr. Hobson: That is another question. So far as Blackburn is concerned the immediate needs have been attended to; there has been expansion there and actually a diversion of manpower.

Speaking Clock, Newport

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange to install a speaking clock for the convenience of telephone subscribers when the new post office and telephone exchange is completed at Newport.

Mr. Hobson: My right hon. Friend hopes to provide this service when the new exchange is opened.

Mr. Llewellyn: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a speaking clock will be installed in the new Cardiff exchange?

Mr. Hobson: We shall provide the service, but whether the speaking clock will be stationed in the Cardiff exchange I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Technicians (Duties)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General the number of technicians 2A classified as employed on internal duties; and the number of technicians 2A classified as employed on external duties in the Post Office engineering department.

Mr. Hobson: On 23rd February, 1951, there were 9,317 employed on internal duties, and 7,352 on external duties.

Advisory Committees

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General whether the membership of the Advisory Committee under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, is complete; how long after the passing of the Act the Committee was nominated; when its first meeting was held; when its last meeting was held; and what advice it has given to him.

Mr. Hobson: Two committees were set up on 26th July, 1950, to consider, in the one case, interference from the ignition systems of certain internal combustion engines, and, in the other, interference from refrigeration apparatus. They are complete in membership. The committee considering ignition systems had its first meeting on 13th September, 1950, and its most recent one on 17th November, 1950; that for refrigeration apparatus met first on 14th September, 1950, and most recently on 26th February, 1951. Neither committee is yet ready to make recommendations.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 3rd May last year I asked him what measures he would be prepared to take concerning the suppression, in particular, of interference from motor car engines with television reception? Is it not incredible that this committee, which was set up under an Act passed in 1949, and which first met in 1950, has still made no recommendations on such a simple problem?

Mr. Hobson: I disagree. It is not a simple problem; it is a very difficult one. In view of the consultations which had to take place, as was made perfectly clear during the Committee stage of the Bill, I cannot agree that there has been undue delay.

Mr. Shepherd: As we are allowing an increasing number of newly manufactured vehicles to come on to the market without suppressors, thus increasing the problem, can the Assistant Postmaster-General say when he expects that the committee will be able to make its recommendations?

Mr. Hobson: No, I cannot say, but, like the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), I realise the importance of an early report, and we will do what we can.

H.M.S. "Theseus" (Telegram)

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: asked the Postmaster-General in what particular the address was incorrect on a cablegram handed in aboard H.M.S. "Theseus" in an operational area on 14th December and delivered in Hill Head, Hampshire, on 29th December last, and which was delayed for that reason.

Mr. Hobson: Inquiries have shown that the address was correctly shown on the telegram handed in on board H.M.S. "Theseus," but my right hon. Friend regrets that mutilation occurred in the course of transmission to this country.

Postmen (Age Limit)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Postmaster-General why, in view of the shortage of manpower, he is placing an upper age limit of 40, or 45 in the case of ex-Service men, on the recruitment of postmen.

Mr. Hobson: The physical effort and exposure to weather involved in the majority of postmen's duties make it necessary to avoid an undue proportion of established postmen in the higher age groups if an efficient service is to be maintained. The postman's class already includes a high proportion of men over the age of 45, as well as of registered disabled men.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: In view of the fact that London Transport, for its bus services in the country, finds it possible to employ men over 40, will the hon.
Gentleman state what is the very much larger difficulty in the case of the Post Office?

Mr. Hobson: The fact that there is no parallel between the London Passenger Transport Board and Post Office postal services.

Mr. Molson: Would the Assistant Postmaster-General say whether this policy has been agreed in consultation with the Minister of Labour, who is trying to encourage the employment of older men?

Mr. Hobson: We are always in consultation with the Ministry of Labour on this question.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that his answer is not in accord

with the answer which the Minister of Labour gave on an Adjournment debate?

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Could we have some candles on the back benches, Sir?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Could you disabuse the minds of the engineers, Mr. Speaker, of the idea that we are such tender plants that we cannot stand the spring sunshine?

Mr. Speaker: That may be so, but, when the sun shines, the whole of that side of the House goes black, and I cannot see anyone. Hon. Members will remember that, in the old House, Members on the Front Bench were continually complaining that they could not see across the House because the sun shone in their eyes. We have to try this plan out, and do our best.

Mr. Ede: May I thank you, Sir, for seeing that there is no colour bar in this House?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman

Air Commodore Harvey: Reverting to the Question, does the hon. Gentleman really think that 45 years of age is too old for postmen to carry out their duties, and, if so, does he apply that principle to the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Hobson: I never said so, nor did the reply to the Question.

Argentine Air Line (Mail Rate)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Postmaster-General why he pays the Argentine Air Line nearly twice as much for carrying mail from Great Britain to South America as he pays to British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Mr. Hobson: The rates of payment where the use of foreign air services is concerned are prescribed in the Convention of the Universal Postal Union. The Argentine Air Line is used in order to facilitate reciprocity in the interests of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and to accelerate the mail.

Mr. Mikardo: While the Postmaster-General is bound to pay not less than the full rate to a foreign airline, that is no


reason why he should pay cut prices to a British airline. If the Argentine price is a fair price, why does the Post Office not pay a fair price to our own people?

Mr. Hobson: Because the price paid by the Post Office to B.O.A.C. in this case is negotiated on a purely commercial basis, which, I think, would recommend itself to all sides of the House.

Mr. John Grimston: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement that the prices are negotiated on a commercial basis with the fact that the two negotiants are both monopolists?

Mr. Hobson: I said that they are negotiated on a purely commercial basis because that happens to be the fact of the case.

Mr. Assheton: Would the hon. Gentleman study the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee of the House last year and familiarise himself with the views there expressed?

Mr. Hobson: I am only too familiar with the views expressed. The answer to that is that the Post Office is paying two and a quarter times for mail what the B.O.A.C. receives for passenger traffic and four times the amount it receives for ordinary freight.

Mr. Mikardo: Are not airmail rates very much higher than ordinary freight rates because airmail is very much more difficult to handle? How does the Minister justify squeezing a publicly-owned corporation in this way?

Mr. Hobson: I resent that; there is no squeezing. We have been perfectly fair in this matter.

Mr. Mikardo: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Postal Deliveries, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Postmaster-General when he will be able to arrange a later postal collection in this House for letters to be delivered in Cardiff the next day.

Mr. Hobson: Letters for Cardiff posted in time for the 9.15–9.30 p.m. collection at the House of Commons are due to be delivered by first post next week-day.

Supplementary collections made after this time depend upon the hour at which the House rises. Letters for Cardiff posted for supplementary collections made up to 10.40–11 p.m. would still be due to secure first delivery next week-day: those posted in subsequent supplementary collections up to 2.40–3 a.m. would normally secure second delivery.

Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that for a long time letters posted at six o'clock have not been delivered next day in my constituency?

Savings Certificates (Children)

Mr. Turton: asked the Postmast-General whether in view of the continuous rise in the cost of living, he will amend the Savings Certificates statutory regulations so as to provide that parents or guardians may obtain repayment of National Savings certificates held by children under seven years of age.

Mr. Hobson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir G. Harvie-Watt) on 6th March.

Mr. Turton: While this matter is being examined between the two Departments, will the hon. Gentleman exercise the special discretion which he possesses and authorise repayment in all cases where the continued rise in the cost of living is causing hardship?

Mr. Hobson: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply last week, I cannot give that assurance.

Mr. Turton: Surely, quite apart from that point, the hon. Gentleman has a discretion under the existing regulations. Is he or is he not going to exercise that discretion?

Mr. Hobson: I cannot give an answer until the matter has been decided by the Government.

Cable and Wireless

Mr. Deedes: asked the Postmaster-General what action is being taken to remedy the deficiency in technical staff in Cable and Wireless.

Mr. Hobson: The small shortage in the technical establishments transferred to the Post Office is being made good from normal sources of recruitment.

Mr. Deedes: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that there is now no shortage of staff on the technical side of Cable and Wireless?

Mr. Hobson: Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my reply, he would have heard that I did not say that.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Postmaster-General what is the estimated deficiency of operators at Cable and Wireless; what is the average monthly intake of recruits; and how long is the period of training.

Mr. Hobson: The United Kingdom shortage at present is 500, including 231 on ancillary duties. There are 382 recruits in training, with an average monthly intake of 50. The period of training varies from six months for inland operating to 12 months for overseas cable work.

Mr. Deedes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this problem is at the root of the very big decline in the cable service, and is he satisfied that all steps that should be taken are being taken to get the proper number of operators?

Mr. Hobson: It is one of the causes, but I do not think it is one of the main causes. We are giving this matter active consideration.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is it true that the service is deteriorating since it was nationalised?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Post master-General the total average emoluments, including salary, bonus, overtime, Sunday duty and any other allowances, of a male telegraph operator in the London Station of Cable and Wireless, Ltd., for the years 1946 and 1950, respectively.

Mr. Hobson: The figures are £765 and £592. The hon. Member is no doubt aware, from my right hon. Friend's reply of 28th February, that the former figure includes a non-pensionable and variable profits bonus.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prospects of these men have deteriorated since nationalisation, and can he give an assurance that pre-nationalisation contracts with these men are still being fulfilled under nationalisation?

Mr. Hobson: This is an industrial matter, and the rates of pay were freely negotiated between the trade unions concerned.

Unions and Associations (Recognition)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General whether the committee appointed by him to advise him on claims for recognition by trade unions and staff associations in the Post Office has yet begun its sittings; and when he expects a report from it.

Mr. Hobson: My right hon. Friend understands that the committee has fixed its first meeting for tomorrow. He is unable to say when it is likely to complete its task.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to convey to the committee the fact that among the matters it has to advise upon is a claim which has been outstanding for over a year, and will he also ask his right hon. Friend to urge the Committee to accelerate its sittings?

Mr. Hobson: I think this committee should report as soon as possible.

Postal Deliveries, London

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the first post deliveries in the St. Marylebone area, in view of the wasted time and inefficiency caused to business firms by the present late deliveries.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that early posts in the Piccadilly and St. James's districts of London have recently been delivered to business and private addresses as late as 10 a.m.; and what action he proposes to take to improve this service.

Mr. Hobson: My right hon. Friend regrets that abnormal sickness and a reorganisation of postmen's duties has led to some delay in completing the first delivery in the districts in question. The position should rapidly improve as the postmen become accustomed to their new rounds, and it is hoped that completion of the delivery by the recognised time will shortly be effected.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been very grave dislocation of business owing to the very late deliveries to business firms in this area? Will he try to expedite matters and to ensure that early deliveries are resumed and maintained so that efficiency in business houses may be maintained?

Mr. Hobson: Yes, Sir, we will keep a close watch on that. The latest report I have is that there has been a considerable improvement. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this reorganisation is being undertaken in order to secure a better and more efficient service, and I am convinced that, as a result of the reorganisation. that will ensue.

Mr. Deedes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the hour of the early delivery is supposed to be, and what it will be when the reorganisation is complete?

Mr. Hobson: Not without notice, but it will compare with deliveries in other parts of the London area.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General say whether or not the Communist cell which, some years ago, existed in the Western District Office in St. Marylebone, and which, as I was informed by the Post Office, was delaying the sorting of letters, has been eliminated?

Mr. Hobson: I am not aware that there has been any delay for that reason at all. The delay is entirely due to the reallocation and reorganisation of the postmen's walks.

Mr. Erroll: Are not the later deliveries the result of the late evening collections?

Mr. Hobson: The later evening collection will affect the St. Marylebone area in exactly the same way as any other parts of London where there is an evening collection.

Deliveries, Benfleet

Mr. Braine: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve postal services in the Benfleet urban district in view of the inconvenience caused by late and irregular deliveries.

Mr. Hobson: My right hon. Friend is looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Braine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one specific case, particulars

of which have been sent to him, first deliveries took place on four days in one week between 11 a.m. and 12.35 p.m.? Is it not about time that my constituents had a very much better service than that? Will he urge upon the Postmaster-General the necessity for speed?

Mr. Hobson: As a result of the hon. Member's complaints we are looking into the matter and I am positive that action, as usual, will be taken.

Mauritian Employees

Mr. Gammans: asked the Postmaster-General how many Mauritians work in the Post Office; and if they receive the same pay and are eligible for the same promotion as the staff recruited from this country.

Mr. Hobson: As regards the first part of the Question, my right hon. Friend regrets that information is not readily available. Mauritians in Post Office employ have the same pay and conditions of service as other members of their grade.

Mr. Gammans: Is that equally true of the Continental Telephone Exchange and does the answer mean that any Post Office worker who comes from any part of the Colonial Empire has no differentiation whatever made against him?

Mr. Hobson: That is my information.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

Expenditure

Brigadier Peto: asked the Postmaster-General what is the proposed annual expenditure on television this current year and for next year, respectively.

Mr. Hobson: The B.B.C.'s annual expenditure on television is a matter for the Corporation. It is estimated that in the current year Post Office expenditure in providing communicating links between television stations will be about £450,000. I cannot yet say how much will be spent next year.

Brigadier Peto: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea how the expenditure of this money will be of benefit to North Devon?

Mr. Hobson: Not without notice, but in any case it is a question for the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Postmaster-General how much is being spent on extending the coverage of television in England.

Mr. Hobson: It is estimated that in the current year B.B.C. expenditure on extending the coverage of television in England will be, approximately, £215,000. The Post Office will spend £350,000 in providing communicating links for the same purpose.

Mr. Lambert: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the fact that re-armament must make it more difficult to manufacture television sets and to extend the supply of electricity to rural areas, it would be better to spend more money on improving sound broadcasts instead of television?

Mr. Hobson: The hon. Gentleman is expressing an opinion.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a great deal of this expenditure on the development of television is directly competitive with the re-armament programme? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to consider Sir William Haley's estimate of £4,250,000 to be spent on the development of television during the next three years and see that that expenditure is drastically reduced?

Development

Mr. Grey: asked the Postmaster-General what instructions he has issued to the British Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the three high-power television stations now in the process of erection.

Mrs. Rees: asked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has been taken, in the light of the re-armament programme, to retard or postpone the erection of the Wenvoe television station.

Mr. Hobson: The rate of television development has been reviewed in relation to the defence programme. It has been decided that the high-power stations at Holme Moss, Kirk o'Shotts and Wenvoe should be completed, but that the five low-powered stations should be postponed indefinitely.

Mr. Llewellyn: Would the hon. Gentleman say on what date that decision was reached?

Mr. Hobson: Not without notice.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Holme Moss. Could he say when it will be completed?

Mr. Hobson: I could not give a definite date, but it will certainly be this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING

Reception, North Devon

Brigadier Peto: asked the Postmaster-General whether he can now reply to the letter from the honourable and gallant Member for Devon, North, dated 22nd February, on the subject of radio reception in North Devon.

Mr. Hobson: My right hon. Friend hopes that the hon. and gallant Member has already received his reply.

Brigadier Peto: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply of the Postmaster-General gave no satisfaction, and that he covered himself with the cloak of the B.B.C? Is it not time that the Minister took responsibility for his office?

Mr. Hobson: I must recommend the hon. and gallant Member to read the Charter under which the B.B.C. has its licence.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only chance which people living in this area have of receiving a reasonably objective account, either of Government policy or of what happens in this House, is through the good offices of the B.B.C, and, in view of the fact that people are at present so much under the control of the Press and Tory propagandists, will he do his utmost to expedite this service?

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: In view of the unsatisfactory reception in many parts of the country, which is not entirely due to the B.B.C. by any means would the Assistant Postmaster-General consider hastening the establishment of V.H.F. broadcasting stations which could boost the B.B.C. services in the different regional areas?

Mr. Hobson: That is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Sir Harold Roper: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us by what date we may expect some results from the action taken in reference to North Devon and North Cornwall?

Transmitters (Cost)

Mr. Lambert: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an estimate of the cost of the transmitters necessary to raise the quality of sound transmission in Devonshire to the standard in other parts of the country.

Mr. Hobson: This is a matter for the B.B.C. on which my right hon. Friend has no information; he suggests that the hon. Member should communicate with the Corporation.

Licences, Devon (Revenue)

Mr. Lambert: asked the Postmaster-General what revenue the Post Office derive from wireless licences in Devonshire.

Mr. Hobson: Proceeds from the sale of wireless licences in Devonshire during 1950 were approximately £222,000.

Mr. Lambert: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a little hard that the people of Devon should have to pay this vast sum of money and then not get proper reception?

Mr. Hobson: That matter will be looked into.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that V. H. F. broadcasting transmitters can be bought for approximately £50,000, and in view of the fact that he is collecting four times that money from licence holders in the Devon area would it not be wise to proceed with this service as soon as possible?

Mr. Hobson: As I indicated earlier, it is a question for the B.B.C.

Mr. Profumo: Is this not a question of wavelengths and frequencies rather than transmitters? Although this may be a matter for the B.B.C, is it not a matter for the Government to see that we get the wavelengths necessary for transmissions in this country? Will the hon. Gentleman see that we get an adequate allocation of wavelengths?

Mr. Hobson: It has nothing to do with frequencies or wavelength allocations.

Reception, Furness

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to improve broadcasting reception in the Furness district of Lancashire.

Mr. Hobson: My right hon. Friend understands from the B.B.C. that the Light Programme should 'be received satisfactorily on the long wavelength. Reception of the Home Service is unsatisfactory; this is one of the areas in which the B.B.C. hopes to make an improvement.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the B.B.C. governors to consider whether their first duty is not to see that everyone in the country can hear the aural programme before spending money on other developments?

Mr. Hobson: Programme reception is constantly reviewed by the B.B.C. and improvements have been made but this is a very difficult problem, particularly in the Barrow area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Airmen (Clothing Allowances)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what are the clothing allowances granted to Regular airmen and National Service airmen, respectively.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Regular airmen receive £5 12s. 0d. a year in areas where tropical kit is worn and £6 4s. 0d. in other areas; National Service airmen receive £2 9s. 0d. a year in all areas. A revision of these rates is now being considered for both Regulars and National Service men.

Mr. Renton: When the Minister is considering the revision of these rates will he do what he can to remove the discrepancy between men serving side by side in the same units?

Mr. Henderson: I could not give any such undertaking because the requirements of Regulars are quite different from those of National Service men. As the hon. Gentleman knows, National Service men serve two years and it is estimated that they do not require any replacement of their uniforms in two years. On the other hand, the Regulars have to replace their uniforms.

Class G Reserve

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement showing how many G reservists to whom notices of recall for training have been, or are to be, sent, had served one, two, three, four, five or six years before VJ day.

Mr. A. Henderson: This information is not available and it would entail a disproportionate amount of work to obtain it. It is estimated, however, that about 3,000 of those who are being recalled saw service in the last war.

Mr. Fort: Is the Minister aware that in at least one village I know, six out of eight men being called up under the G Reserve scheme are 38, 39 or 40 years of age or over? Does he think that this is carrying out the pledge to make sure that there is not a disproportionate number of those being called who served in the last war and who are now getting on to middle age?

Mr. Henderson: I quite appreciate the point of view of the man who is 40 years of age, who may be called up even for 15 days' training; but the object of the whole scheme is to increase our preparedness in the event of an emergency this year and it has to be realised that it is most desirable to have men who have had experience.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Class G reservists to whom calling-up papers have been sent were under 35; how many were between 35 and 40; and how many were over 40.

Mr. A. Henderson: Of the Class G reservists to whom warning notices of call-up have been sent, 710 are aged 40 or over. Figures of those under 35, and between 35 and 40, are not readily available, but as soon as the scheme is in full operation I will be glad to give these figures.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say when that will be?

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps within two months.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the 710 men are all specialists?

Mr. Henderson: I prefer to call them tradesmen.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Air why the appeal by Mr. F. Jacob, Windy Ridge, Prospect Place, Haverfordwest, against his call-up under Class G Reserve has been turned down in Air Ministry letter A.78379/51/ D.D.M.D./1651963, in view of the fact that he is 42 years of age and his job as a railway clerk was reserved at 35 during the 1939–45 war.

Mr. A. Henderson: The reason why Mr. Jacob's appeal, which was very fully and sympathetically considered, had to be rejected, is that, as I told the House recently, the number of men in the Air Force trade of Clerk Special Duties, who are available for call-up, is limited, and the grounds on which he appealed were not felt to be sufficiently strong to warrant exemption. The arrangements which during the last war governed the call-up by age groups of men who had not previously received Service training, are not appropriate for the selective recall of trained reservists on the present occasion.

Mr. Donnelly: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that for a time during the last war I was a special duties clerk myself, that most of my job was taken up with making cups of tea for the officers, and that because I was very successful at this I was very appropriately recommended for a commission in the Intelligence branch?

Mr. H. Hynd: Could not the Air Ministry secure a considerable reduction in staff if they would use less lengthy references in their letters than, for example, the reference which appears in the Question?

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Has not the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) shown himself, to have every qualification for the position of a Parliamentary Private Secretary?

Jamaicans

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) what facilities are provided to enable ex-Royal Air Force personnel in Jamaica to rejoin the Royal Air Force;
(2) whether he will take steps to open a recruiting office in Jamaica.

Mr. A. Henderson: Ex-R.A.F. personnel living in Jamaica are accepted into the Royal Air Force if they now conform to the standards required; no, facilities are provided in Jamaica, but they can re-join through the recruiting and selection organisation in this country. Any British subjects whether of European descent or otherwise will be admitted to the Royal Air Force provided they attain the requisite standards. But it has never been the practice in peace-time to open recruiting offices overseas; and it is not at present intended to do so.

Mr. Paget: How do these Jamaicans get here to join up at our recruiting offices? If we want men why cannot some facilities be provided, where one has trained men, to let them join up where they are?

Mr. Henderson: Whether they come from Jamaica, or any other part of the British Commonwealth, they have to make their own way here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is quite impracticable to pay the expenses of men who may desire to join one of the Forces, because after they arrive here they may be found to be medically unfit or otherwise unacceptable. Therefore, the money is wasted.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister say why they should not be medically examined on the spot?

Mr. Henderson: As far as the Royal Air Force is concerned it is not only a question of medical examination but whether they are suitable for a particular trade. Recruits to the R.A.F. are trade-tested.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Was there not a recruiting station in Jamaica during the war?

Mr. Henderson: I do not know whether there was the usual kind of recruiting station. Certainly, recruits were not trade-tested and, as a result, a large proportion of those brought over were found afterwards to be unsuitable; though I hasten to say that many others rendered splendid service.

Air Commodore Harvey: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why a small trade test board should not visit Jamaica and other areas and test these men, and also make use of a local medical officer? This would be quite easy.

Mr. Henderson: I think the suggestions which have been put forward, including the suggestion in the main Question, are very fair, but I have stated what the policy has always been in the three Services to date. I am not saying that the suggestions will never be operated, but I cannot go beyond a statement of the present position.

Accident, Tillingham

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will investigate the circumstances in which a 320 gallon petrol tank recently fell from an aircraft near the sea-wall at Tillingham, Essex; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am advised that the petrol tank in question was an auxiliary petrol tank which was released by mistake from a fighter aircraft of the United States Air Force. The aircraft was carrying out a training exercise at the Bradwell Bay firing range. No damage or casualties were caused by the accident.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what is the position in cases of this kind if damage or casualties are caused? Is there any procedure for claiming compensation?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. There is a United States Air Force Claims Commission in this country for the purpose of investigating and settling any claims in respect of damage caused by United States Air Force aircraft.

Princess Flying Boats

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the take-over of the Princess flying boat project by the Royal Air Force.

Mr. A. Henderson: It has been decided that the three Princess flying boats should be completed for the Royal Air Force. Each boat will have the equivalent lift of one Hastings squadron, and they will, therefore, be a most valuable addition to our transport resources in time of war.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether he is proceeding with any other long-term projects for the development of flying boats? It is felt in this country that we


have a considerable amount of operational and manufacturing "know-how" which should not be concentrated on one project only.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman will remember that that matter was discussed in the Estimates debate.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he expects these flying boats to be delivered to the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Henderson: The first one will be completed towards the end of this year.

Mr. Morley: On what port will those flying boats be based when they are in operation? On Southampton?

Mr. Henderson: I am sorry I cannot promise that Southampton will necessarily be one of the bases, but this matter is under consideration.

U.S. STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND, UNITED KINGDOM

Visconnt Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many units of the United States Strategic Bomber Command are now stationed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. Henderson: Units of the United States Strategic Air Command at present located in this country comprise a medium bomber group, an escort fighter group, two strategic reconnaissance squadrons all with maintenance and supply backing and a small number of ground detachments.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has the constitutional position of the presence in this country of units of this Command been looked into, seeing that it comes directly under the orders of the President of the United States and is not part of the Atlantic Treaty Organisation and does not appear to be part of any force over which there is any command or jurisdiction exercised by this country?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think there is any constitutional difficulty whatever. These units are here with the approval, I believe, of the great majority of the people in this country and I think it would be a great pity to confuse the issue

by suggesting that there is some constitutional difficulty.

Mr. Eden: Has it not been a practice over many years for this country freely to invite units of any Allied country to be stationed here under its own discretion?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, especially when it is done with our strong approval.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Northolt Aerodrome

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, in view of circuit danger, it is intended to cease flying at Northolt Aerodrome when British European Airways have completed their removal to Heathrow.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on Thursday, 15th February, 1951.

Mr. Shepherd: May I take it that flying will not take place from Northolt in these circumstances and that the Ministry of Civil Aviation will resist all attempts to resume it?

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Member can take nothing beyond what I have said in my answer.

Prestwick Airport

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what are his proposals for the development of Prestwick as an international airport.

Mr. Beswick: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 15th February.

Sir T. Moore: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am getting very tired of having to put this Question and of getting very unsatisfactory replies? Would he tell my why the recommendations of the Clydesmuir Committee have not been accepted in their entirety since, as all Scottish Members know, they represent the real wishes of Scotland in regard to civil aviation?

Mr. Beswkk: I am surprised when the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the replies are unsatisfactory, because in the answer to which I referred him there are two columns in HANSARD much of which are occupied by details of recommendations which were made by that Committee and which were accepted by us.

Sir T. Moore: Yes, but not the recommendations which were not accepted.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of two columns in HANSARD and every other assurance, this great airport is being wasted? How long is this going on?

Southampton Marine Airport

Mr. Morley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what proposals he has for the future of the Southampton Marine airport.

Mr. Beswick: The water-area licensed for aircraft operations will remain under the control of the Southampton harbour authorities. The passenger handling buildings will be disposed of to the best advantage.

Mr. Morley: Could my hon. Friend be a little more explicit? He has several times said that the airport is to be kept on a proper care and maintenance basis— a care and maintenance basis for what? What is the use to which the airport will be put?

Mr. Beswick: The decision to keep these buildings on a care and maintenance basis was made on the understanding that we would operate the Princess flying boat. As my hon. Friend has heard, this flying boat will now be used for military operations.

MARRIAGE LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Major Vernon: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the marriage laws.

Mrs. Eirene White: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Government's intentions concerning the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into divorce law reform.

Mr. Black: asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been taken by His Majesty's Government as to the setting up of a Royal Commission to examine and report upon the divorce laws.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the marriage laws.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have decided to recommend to His Majesty the appointment of a Royal Commission to review the law relating to divorce. I am not yet able to announce the precise terms of reference or the names of members of the Commission, but I will make a further statement on these points as soon as possible.

Mrs. White: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to assure the House that the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to cover not only the law directly relating to marriage, separation and divorce, but also such cognate matters as pensions, insurance and marriage guidance and advice, so that people may be helped to avoid broken marriages? May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government, who have shown some hesitation in reaching a further decision on this matter, recognise that it is very undesirable for the public to be kept for so long in uncertainty on questions which affect the lives and futures of so many thousands of men and women? May we have an answer to these points as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly take into account the points put forward by my hon. Friend when considering the terms of reference. I know she would not expect an answer now. But in my experience people have had to wait a considerable time on these questions of the divorce laws. I cannot promise how soon we shall get a result, but we shall appoint the Commission as soon as possible.

Mr. Black: Will the terms of reference be sufficiently wide to enable the Royal Commission to consider what can be done to increase the public regard for the sanctity of marriage?

The Prime Minister: I have always understood that that was one of the points taken into consideration by Royal Commissions on this subject.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this Commission, which cannot possibly report for some years and which, in any event, binds no one to anything, will not be made the pretext for murdering the Bill passed in this House on Friday with a decisive majority and with widespread public approval?

MINISTERIAL CHANGES (NEWSPAPER REPORT)

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: asked the Prime Minister why advance information was given by his office to the "Daily Herald" in regard to the retirement of the right hon. Member for Woolwich. East, from the post of Foreign Secretary.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is mistaken. No such information was given by my office.

Mr. Hopkinson: While, of course, I fully accept the Prime Minister's assurances with regard to his own office, may I ask him whether he is aware that in the first or country editions of the London morning newspapers for Friday, 9th March, the "Daily Herald"—and the "Daily Herald" alone—carried an authoritative statement on this important event? Will he order an investigation into this apparent leakage, having regard in particular to the importance of avoiding any suggestion of discrimination in favour of a party-controlled newspaper?

The Prime Minister: There was no authoritative statement. There was no authority whatever in that statement. I can assure the hon. Member that if he looks at the papers, as I do, he will realise that I am always getting completely authoritative statements about things which have not happened. Guesses are made and every now and again a guess comes off right. I have been looking into these things. It is impossible to trace them. I get statements about Cabinet meetings and decisions which have never happened—all reported in the most authoritative way.

Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend indicate what advance information was given to the "Daily Worker" about the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers)?

Mr. Molson: Does the Prime Minister not realise that there is a distinction between statements which turn out to be inaccurate and statements which turn out to be completely accurate? Will he institute an inquiry as to how this information, which was not apparently officially issued, reached that newspaper?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the difference between accurate and inaccurate information, but there are so many speculations made that every now and again an intelligent journalist is bound to ring the bell.

Mr. Driberg: Was not this just a case of what is always called intelligent anticipation, on the part of the "Daily Herald"?

ARMED FORCES Operations, Korea

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on operations in Korea.

Mr. Churchill: Does the Minister intend to make one of the periodic statements which he makes from time to time to the House? If so, would it not be better that it should be made at the end of Question Time?

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): I would put that observation into the category of intelligent anticipation. I have not yet answered the Question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I first answer the Question. The answer is that I hope to make a further statement before the Easter Recess.

Mr. Churchill: I gladly make my acknowledgment to the right hon. Gentleman.

First Sea Lord (Speech)

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Defence whether the speech made by the First Sea Lord at Gibraltar on Monday, 5th March, with regard to the appointment of an American admiral as Supreme Atlantic Commander, was made with his approval; and under what arrangements the wide and immediate official publicity was given to this speech.

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the statement of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Eraser of North Cape, he will take steps to ensure


that personal statements of opinion are not made by senior officers in His Majesty's Forces on matters of major Government policy while such matters are under consideration by this House.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) on Monday last. No action was taken by the Admiralty to give publicity to this speech.

Mr. Churchill: May I draw the attention of the Minister to the King's Regulations, paragraph 17 (2):
All persons belonging to the Fleet are forbidden to write or otherwise to communicate to the Press, or publish or allow to be published, directly or indirectly, any matter or information relating to the Naval Service, or anything of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or relating to matters of public policy, unless the permission of the Admiralty has been first obtained.

Mr. Harrison: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, will you inform the House whether we are still on Question Time, because it seems to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—that the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better carry on. After all, it is my responsibility. I do not want more heat raised today than necessary. Let us get on.

Mr. Churchill: I will continue.
They are further forbidden, without first obtaining Admiralty permission, to deliver publicly or broadcast any lecture or read any paper on such subjects, or, in any published speech dealing with such subjects"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a question."]
to express opinions which are likely to give rise to controversy.
May I ask——

Mr. Hector Hughes: rose——

Mr. Churchill: I am in possession of the House as long as you permit it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is so much noise that I cannot tell whether the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), is raising a point of order or not.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying "On a point of order" and then not raising the point of order. I was waiting to hear him.

Mr. Hughes: My point of order is this, Sir. Is it fair to other hon. Members who have Questions later on the Order Paper to have to hear a speech made in the middle of Question Time?

Mr. Churchill: We ought to be able to discuss these matters. In view of this perfectly clear paragraph in the King's Regulations, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty gave permission to the present First Sea Lord to make the speech attributed to him?

Mr. Shinwell: Since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of King's Regulations, I would point out that I understand that the governing regulation is 541 (b), which, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman stated, I venture to read to the House:
No officer or soldier or member of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service is permitted to take any active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party either by acting as a member of a candidate's"—

Mr. Churchill: Is this for the Navy or the Army?

Mr. Shinwell: It says:
no officer or soldier or member of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service is permitted to take any active part.…
It is a regulation which covers the three Services. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will permit me to read the passage perhaps it will illuminate their minds. In any event, I intend to read it. It continues:
either by acting as a member of a candidate's selection committee, or by speaking in public or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the political purposes of any such organisation or party, or in any other manner until he or she has retired, resigned or been discharged or, in the case of a field marshal, until he has relinquished any appointment that he may be holding.
King's Regulations for the Royal Navy and Admiralty Instructions contain a similar passage.

Mr. Churchill: I have read a passage which entirely contradicts that and which was taken from the King's Regulations for the Naval Services. Surely that is relevant——

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order.

Mr. Churchill: Surely that is relevant in this matter and what I ask is this——

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. Is not the right hon. Gentleman imparting information rather than seeking it?

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on with it. I want to hear the end of it.

Mr. Churchill: What I ask, arising from that, is this: Was permission given by the First Lord of the Admiralty or other Ministerial authority to the First Sea Lord to enter upon this subject in the manner which has been attributed to him?

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the alleged contradiction in King's Regulations, I must not be held to be responsible for King's Regulations as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must not be held to be responsible for the whole of King's Regulations; I have to interpret them. I did not prepare them. As regards the second part of the supplementary question, I understand that there was no consultation between the First Sea Lord and the First Lord of the Admiralty; indeed, there was no occasion why there should have been. The First Sea Lord, at a gathering of naval personnel, merely stated what had been stated by the Prime Minister in the House on a previous occasion.

Mr. Churchill: But is it not very desirable to keep the high naval and military professional authorities, actively serving, out of matters of controversy in Parliament?

Mr. Shinwell: I am quite certain—and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of this—that in the three Services high ranking officers, and, indeed, all personnel, are anxious to keep out of political controversy. But they did not start the political controversy. It was the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Churchill: Now, with very great respect, I put this question to the Prime Minister. Does he approve of the Minister of Defence deliberately justifying what has been a breach of King's Regulations?

Mr. Shinwell: I take my stand on the Regulation which I read to the House. I stand by the Regulation to which I have referred, and, what is more, so far as I

can ascertain, the First Sea Lord did not in any sense, or in the spirit or in the letter, violate King's Regulations.

Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate—[Interruption.] It does not worry me at all to be interrupted: I like it. Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the Regulation which I read from the Navy Regulations, by which officers have to be guided from day to day? Does he, as head of the defence Services?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not seek to repudiate any section of King's Regulations, but I take my stand on that passage in King's Regulations to which I referred; and, perhaps, I should add this, because I think it ought to be said——

Mr. Churchill: What?

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I should add this, that if the First Sea Lord had made a statement contrary to the statement which he made, which was merely a reaffirmation of what the Prime Minister had said, I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman would have raised it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Churchill: But——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order——

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: It is quite impossible for me to know what any one is saying. I cannot hear a single word. Suppose we have a little silence, so that I can hear something. Is the right hon. Gentleman rising to a point of order?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir; it seems to be the only way one is allowed to speak in this House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: We are getting very excited. After all, perhaps that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman likes to see—everybody getting up at once. Try, not to play that game.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order. Is it not a very insulting charge for the Minister of Defence to make, that I should have adopted—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are afraid to hear the case put—a totally different view of King's Regulations, if the First Sea Lord's opinions had been of a very different


nature from those which have been expressed? Is it not very much better that all parties should join together to keep the professional heads of the Services out of political matters?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: A point of order has been put to me. I was going to say something about it. It seems I am not allowed to say a word in the House. That question was not a point of order at all.

Mr. Shinwell: rose——

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. This Question——

Mr. Speaker: Again, I am not able to hear a single word. Let me hear.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. This Question was put down by a Tory back bencher, and immediately the Question was answered by the Minister of Defence the Leader of the Opposition barged to the Despatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and has since taken all the supplementaries. We want to know what rights back benchers have in this matter. Is it not the case that it is the hon. Member who puts a Question down who asks the first supplementary? The back benchers have not been allowed to put supplementary questions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked them.

Mr. Speaker: I have no authority over that. That is a matter between the baok bencher and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Shinwell: I merely wish to say this in defence of the First Sea Lord, that it seemed to me and to the First Lord of the Admiralty that what the First Sea Lord had done was to comment, and quite naturally, to a meeting of naval personnel on a matter affecting the command organisation in which he is vitally interested. There was no question of intervening in a political controversy. I should just like to add that I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman thought that I was conveying any sinister motive or imputation into what he said. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman would have adopted a different course, but he might have adopted the right course. If I suggested he might have adopted the wrong course, perhaps I was wrong.

Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will endeavour, as Minister of Defence, to keep the professional heads of the Services as far as possible outside—in accordance with the Regulations—matters of high and controversial public policy which have to be debated in the House of Commons?

Mr. Wyatt: Unless the Leader of the Opposition agrees with them.

Mr. Shinwell: To the right hon. Gentleman's direct question I give an affirmative reply. It is desirable that high ranking officers—indeed, all those in the Services —should not embark on political controversy or intervene in such matters; but I am bound to say that I cannot see that the First Sea Lord did anything which can be regarded as improper.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: In my judgment we have had enough questions on this subject.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: After all, it is my responsibility. We have now had ten minutes on this matter. We shall have half an hour if we go on like this.

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. With great respect, Sir, all the supplementary questions that have occupied the time you have complained about been put by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Is that fair?

Mr. Speaker: All the answers have been by the Minister of Defence. I prefer to leave it at that.

Mr. Driberg: rose——

Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) distinctly said that we wanted not only a new Parliament but a new Speaker. Is that permitted. Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I never heard it; and anyhow the noble Lord is entitled to his own opinion. It does not matter much to me. I think we had better get on now.

Earl Winterton: If, in conversation, I indicated that I thought it would be in the interests of the country that we should have a new Parliament which would involve a new Speaker, I apologise.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bartley.

Mr. Driberg: Could we have just one back bench supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the time had come when it would be much better to get on. We are going to debate this matter, and we had better debate it in due course. We have had Question Time going on far too much as a kind of irregular debate, and it might be continued as such. I therefore thought we had better stop it. Mr. Bartley.

Mr. Blackburn: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: No, I am having no more points of order on this. Mr. Bartley.

Mr. Driberg: With great respect——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat and not rise again. Mr. Bartley.

ACCIDENT, SOUTH BIRTLEY COLLIERY

Mr. P. Bartley: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House in regard to the accident that occurred on Tuesday, 13th March, at South Birtley colliery, in which there are seven miners entombed.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. South Birtley is a licensed mine, from which clay is extracted for making bricks and tiles. Yesterday afternoon there was a fall of roof in the main surface drift. The fall was being cleared, when a further fall took place, which blocked the drift and imprisoned seven men. Rescue work began at once, and has continued ever since; at 8.30 a.m. today a passage was cleared large enough to allow food and drink to be passed through. His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and the officers of the National Coal Board have given all the assistance in their power. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that the imprisoned men are in no immediate danger; but I must add that the ground is difficult, and I cannot yet say when they will be brought out.

Mr. Bartley: In view of the public and personal anxiety that there is about this matter, I am sure that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House will be glad to hear the hopeful prospect of the

safe release of these men; will express appreciation of the work that is being done by the rescuers, both management and workmen; and will hope that their work will meet with success at a very early hour.

Mr. Hamilton: Do not these real tragedies make it more than ever shameful that the Opposition should continue to denigrate the miners in their efforts to obtain coal?

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a submission in regard to the matter I raised with you in the early hours this morning. The matter concerns a statement made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby). Unfortunately I could not contact the hon. Member during the early hours. I did try for an hour to find him in the House.

Mr. McGovern: He was not here.

Mr. Manuel: At any rate, I could not contact him and I raised the point— although it did not go any further than that—and you said you would examine it this afternoon. It concerns the report of a speech which I discovered on the tape last night, and which is reported in the newspapers this morning. I will read the actual quotation from the report of the hon. Gentleman's speech recorded on the Exchange Telegraph machine at 11.19 p.m.:
11.19 p.m. Tory plan to exhaust Labour M.P.s

Mr. Kirkwood: They are not fit for the job.

Mr. Manuel: The report goes on:
The Conservative exhaustion plan in the House of Commons against the Labour Government was outlined by Mr. Robert Boothby, Conservative M.P. tor Aberdeen, when speaking at Banstead, Surrey, tonight. He said: 'We shall harry the life out of them. We shall keep 'em up day and night. The only way to get rid of them fairly quickly is to try and wear them out. There is no other way to do it. We have just got to go cracking on. We will make it absolutely intolerable for them'.

Mr. Kirkwood: The typically tolerant Englishmen!

Mr. Manuel: ' We will make them sit up day and night and grind away until they get absolutely hysterical'"—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kirkwood: Hysterical! Look at them.

Mr. Manuel: ' and say "We cannot stand any more." And this is what we are going to do for the next two or three months. Division after division. And we can do it in squads'. Mr. Boothby hurriedly left the meeting to return to the House of Commons.

Mr. McGovern: He never arrived.

Mr. Manuel: This morning I notified the hon. Gentleman by letter, which I think he received.

Mr. Hamilton: Has he opened it?

Mr. Manuel: Now, if in fact that reported speech is true, I submit that we have complete evidence of a conspiracy by the Conservative Party to abuse the processes of this House, and in my opinion it comes within the definition of contempt. Perhaps I might quote Erskine May, 15th Edition, at page 109:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or"—
and this is important—
which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
If, on the other hand, the statement is not true and no such conspiracy exists, it is, I submit, a case of gross contempt to suggest that such a plan does exist, and to strengthen that statement I quote from Erskine May, 15th Edition, page 120, headed:

OTHER INDIGNITIES OFFERED TO EITHER HOUSE

Other acts besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to obstruct or impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this

result indirectly by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authority may constitute contempts."

Finally, Mr. Speaker, 'I submit that, in my opinion, there is clear evidence to obstruct the House and to prevent the consideration of urgent business in order —and I do not admit this—physically and adversely to attack Ministers and Members on this side. Mr. Speaker, I would with great respect—remembering that I did try to follow your advice and to indicate to you without delay, and I have written to you two letters since— submit that there is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. I would ask if you would give your Ruling, and I am certainly prepared to submit a Motion that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges for consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member raised this matter in the early hours of this morning and I promised to look into it. I have listened carefully to what he said, and I am afraid that the answer is this: That the matter of which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) complains does not concern the privileges of the House, and even if the report is correct, the statement alleged to have been made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), does not appear to be comparable with any speech which in the past has been held to constitute contempt or breach of Privilege, and on these grounds I rule that there is no prima facie case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Ordered:
That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Hie Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51.

CLASS IX

VOTE 3. MINISTRY OF FOOD

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; and sundry other services.

CLASS VI

VOTE 9. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

CLASS VI

VOTE 21. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £36,450, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for certain food production services of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for sundry expenses connected with His Majesty's Foreign Service; special grants, including grants in aid; and various other services.

CLASS IX

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply for the supply of munitions, aircraft, common-user and other articles and atomic energy and for research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto; for administrative services in connection with the iron and steel, non-ferrous and light metals and engineering industries; for the operation of the Royal Ordnance Factories and Official Car Services; and for miscellaneous supplies and services.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE PROGRAMME (SUPPLIES)

3.52 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): In moving the Supplementary Estimates Class IX, I propose to say only a few words at this stage. I hope that I shall not be accused of discourtesy if I cut my remarks short because I understand that quite a number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate and there is not very much time. - I think, therefore, that it would be better if I confine any remarks that I have to make to answering questions which may be put to me by hon. Members during the debate.
The first Vote on the Paper is an additional sum of £1,300,000 required for clothing and textiles. About £1 million of that is due to acceleration of the original defence programme together with rising prices, and about £300,000 is due to the new defence programme. Under heading F.2—general stores—we are asking for a Supplementary Estimate of £2 million. Out of that about £1,250,000 is needed because of the additional defence programme and the balance of £750,000 is due to improved deliveries and increased prices on the original programme.
The next item of £3,500,000 for machine tools may be of some interest to the Committee and I should like to give the following information. It was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement to the House on 15th February that we would have to spend something like £115 million on machine


tools for the increased defence programme. We have since reviewed that figure and it now appears that the final figure may be somewhat less; one cannot say exactly.
It is difficult to calculate the amount or value of the machine tools required because of the difficulty of estimating, at this stage, what the sub-contractors are likely to need. It is however the duty of my Ministry to get the machine tools that may be necessary and our task is made the more severe by the need to get them urgently—within 12 or at the most 18 months. The £3½ million asked for in this Vote is for machine tools ordered abroad during recent months. It is normal to make some cash payment in the form of deposit or some advance payment when these are ordered.
The total number of machine tools that we are likely to require to carry out our defence programme is about 27,000. Since the Supplementary Estimate was framed the Committee will be pleased to know we have progressed further, and ordered a substantial number of machine tools. We have paid out already £5½ million on about 9,000 machine tools ordered in the United States and on the Continent. Most of them have been ordered in the United States. These machine tools were bought through normal trade channels, and I should like to express my gratitude to the importers for the skill and energy which they showed in placing these orders.
One of our most difficult problems is to dove-tail foreign purchases, which must be substantial, with the machine tools available from home production. That is a very grave problem, in which we will be assisted by the recent appointment which I announced on Monday of Mr. S. W. Rawson as Director-General of Machine Tools. In order to assess the present output of machine tools, and the extent to which the tools are being used for essential purposes, and the uses from which they could possibly be diverted to the defence programme, we are examining in agreement with the industry, the order books of about 30 manufacturers of Machine Tools, which are most important for the defence programme. Not only are we looking at their order books, but we are trying to find out for what purpose these machine tools, which have been

ordered, will, in fact, be used. Until that has been done we cannot assess properly the extent to which it may be possible to use home-produced machine tools—we know it will be a very large number— for the defence programme.
While we would be reluctant to do so, it is possible that we may have to divert some of our normal exports of machine tools for this purpose. I say that we shall be reluctant to do so, because nearly all these machine tools go to Commonwealth countries for essential purposes or to countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We very much hope we shall not have to divert any kind of machine tool exports from these countries to our own defence programme, because it is clearly in the general interests to maintain our exports to those destinations which are building up their own, and, thereby, of our common defence.
We are also taking steps to increase our output of machine tools. We are in touch with the Ministry of Labour to see whether it is possible to man up some of the machine tool works which are undermanned, and we are also doing everything we can to encourage tool manufacturers to sub-contract. If necessary we shall have to go into a programme of new production, taking over existing factories and building new ones.
I have spoken about orders which my Department placed with overseas suppliers and I mentioned the United States. The United States is an absolutely vital source of supply, because when it comes to the bill we cannot complete our defence programme without their help. Many of the tools we need cannot be obtained anywhere else, and because of the difficult world supply we shall not be able to meet the full extent of our requirements without help from the United States. It is not, therefore, too much to say that the full realisation of our defence programme depends on the orders we have placed and the further orders about to be placed with American industry. We are in constant consultation with our American friends on this matter both in Washington and in London.
That is all I want to say at this stage on the subject of machine tools, but I should like to add one word on the purchase of materials for strategic reserve. Unfortunately, there is not very much I can say about that. The matter was


covered generally in the debate which took place on Friday week, and the general policy of the Government on the purchasing of raw materials was outlined. I do not want to add anything to what was said in that debate. Moreover, as the Committee is aware, we do not want to make public the details of our stockpile.
We feel there is a strong security objection to doing that, and, therefore, all I propose to say is that we have acted as energetically as we can to get the materials which are likely to be in short supply during the coming months. We would like to buy much more, but we have been debarred from so doing because the materials are not available. I hope that the Committee will not press me to go into the details and break down the total amount, of £7,700,000, into types of metal and so on.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the debate last Friday week on the subject of raw materials. The outline of Government policy was delivered by the President of the Board of Trade, whose whole speech was devoted to the raw materials under his control—wool, cotton and so forth. So far as I can remember, the right hon. Gentleman made hardly any reference to any of the materials controlled by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply.

Mr. Strauss: Some reference was made, but I am perfectly prepared to speak later on non-ferrous metals. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the Committee now, but I shall answer any questions put to me about our policy for stockpiling. I do not want to enter into a general policy statement now, because it would take up a large part of the time available for this debate.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We are being asked to vote this sum of over £7 million, and we should like to know what articles it covers and what the general policy is. It is better to take it short now, than at much greater length later on.

Mr. Strauss: Our general policy is to buy as much as we can of raw materials which are in short supply and which affect the engineering industries of this country, such as non-ferrous metals and various alloy metals for steel, and in some cases

some types of ore. We want to buy as much as we can and so far as we can without seriously curtailing the present production of industry, and to put these materials in our stockpile. This figure of £7,700,000 contains a substantial range of articles, and I am anxious not to give the details, because we feel that, for strong security reasons we should not do so.
If any hon. Member wishes to put specific questions to me I will do my best to answer them when the debate comes to an end. I do not think I can do better, and I am perfectly sure that the Committee will endorse the general policy of stockpiling these materials to the extent that it is possible to do so. We are pursuing that matter energetically, and using all possible channels—private trade channels and all others—in carrying through that task.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman said that the policy was to buy those articles which are in short supply. Does he not also mean those which are not in short supply but may become so in the future? Is he entirely confining his activities to materials which are in short supply now?

Mr. Strauss: We are not only buying articles in short supply now, but also those where there is any possibility or probability of them being in short supply during the next year or two.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: This is not in the ordinary sense of the term a Supplementary Estimate. This is a new service, and it is outside my experience for a Minister on an Estimate of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced —one of his main Estimates—to give such an extremely cursory explanation to the Committee. He has not told us in the slightest degree what he desires to do, what articles in detail he requires, what he intends to cover, and how he intends to get them. I think he must.

Mr. Strauss: The last thing I want to do is to appear to give less detail than the Committee would require. I understood after some conversations that I had with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it would be to the general convenience that my introductory remarks should be


as brief as possible. I mentioned the time. I hoped that it would take no more than 10 minutes altogether, so as to allow ample time for hon. Members to ask me questions. I will answer those questions afterwards. It was in conformity with that undertaking that I cut my remarks short. I think that we shall be using our time much better if I answer questions that are put.
On the general policy, there is really not much more that I can say, particularly as I am reluctant to give details of the goods that we have stockpiled—exactly what they are or how much we have bought—except to say that we are anxious to buy all those goods which are short, or which we think are likely to be short during the next two or three years, and that we should have liked to buy very much more if they had been available. I hope that the Committee, after questions have been asked and replied to later, will then agree to the Supplementary Estimate.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: The Minister says that the general policy is to buy as much as we can in all directions. We are discussing a Supplementary Estimate for money which is wanted up to the end of this financial year, that is to say, it has only a fortnight to run. Our disquiet is that that has not been the general policy during the period when this money has been spent. It may be all right for the Minister to come down and say in March, 1951, "We have made up our minds to stockpile and to get all the raw materials we can." That is not good enough.
We have to look backwards, over the year when this money has been spent, and to ask whether the shopkeeping during that year has been well or badly done. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of our raw material supplies have done the very reverse of what an intelligent shopkeeper would do. After all, we have the reputation of being a nation of shopkeepers, but we must have lost it by now, because the two right hon. Gentlemen sitting there have failed to keep their stocks of raw materials, for which they now ask what seems a very small sum indeed, in line with the anticipated changes in supplies and prices.
We heard the other day as an excuse for this that no warning was given to the Minister to go out into the world and buy more of the available raw materials. I cannot speak for the warnings given by the trade or by trade associations. It may be that one of my hon. Friends knows more about that than I do. All I know is that the clearest warnings were given before Korea by the prices of the shares of the great companies who produce our raw materials. Those prices are by far the most sensitive indicators. There is not a shadow of excuse for His Majesty's Ministers for having misjudged this market.
The hundreds or even thousands of investors who bought shares, the prices of which are based upon the production of important commodities, did so not because they took the Ministers' view that it was a good thing to run down stocks of those commodities because prices were going to fall. They made their purchases of shares because they felt certain that the underlying products would go up in value and be more profitable. Let me take tin for a start. I suppose one of the leading tin companies, which I have taken at random, is Tronoh Mines. Exactly a year ago, in the middle of March, the price of the shares of that company was 23s. By the middle of June, a week or two before Korea, the price had gone up to 27s. Everyone could tell that tin was a good thing. Take zinc. By far the most prominent company there is Consolidated Zinc of Australia. In the middle of March the shares were 23s. By the middle of June they were 28s. Our stocks of zinc were being run down. Zinc contracts were being cancelled at a time when the whole of the investing public in the world were taking an opposite view to that of Ministers.
It was just the same with international nickel and rubber. The leading firm in the rubber business, I suppose, is the United Sua Betong. These shares went up from 30s. to 36s. during that period before Korea. We come to newsprint and pulp supplies, in which Bowater's paper shares are the index of what is going on in the paper world. They went up from 40s. to 48s. There is not a shadow of excuse for not stockpiling sooner and in greater quantities.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): What date was that?

Mr. Eccles: I am talking about the four months preceding Korea.

Mr. Wilson: In the four months preceding Korea both rubber and newsprint were bought by private merchants, not by the Government.

Mr. Eccles: I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question. I think I am right in saying that the private purchase of pulp was only made free last March. When the Board of Trade allowed private buyers to go back into the pulp market they were too late for that season's purchases of pulp in Scandinavia, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows. They could have got pulp if they had been encouraged to do so before, but the right hon. Gentleman held his control on too long.
I believe it would be true to say that our private stocks of rubber compare very favourably with the Ministry's stocks of non-ferrous metals. I think the rubber manufacturing industry has about kept level, while the national stocks of non-ferrous metals in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman have gone down. The history of this business shows that Ministers took a wrong judgment, which shows that they are not competent housekeepers when it comes to the provision of stockpiles and raw materials generally. It is not only that the Ministers are incompetent. I believe that the system of buying, the machinery of Government, is not suitable.
It seems that we shall get more of these unsatisfactory Estimates so long as the purchasing and responsibility for raw materials are spread through a number of Ministries. We ought to have learned the lesson of the last war, which was that when we get into a period of scarcity and want to stockpile, it is no good having different Ministries responsible for different raw materials. It is far better, both with raw material supplies and with machine tools, and certainly with international negotiations, when we are trying to allocate scarce materials, to draw those together into one Ministry.
In the last war we were too late. The Ministry of Production was set up too late. Why not let us profit by that

experience now? Why not take these matters out of the hands of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, at the Board of Trade? Let us have a Ministry of Common Services. We might at least get these things looked at in a more national way. Stockpiling is of immense importance in defence. The plain question that I should like to ask the Minister to deal with when he replies is: Can he give us some idea how important the Government really think stockpiling is? We have no idea on these benches. What is the good, for instance, of building a great antisubmarine defence, if war should come and we have not stocks in this country to tide us over the two or three months when things will perhaps be difficult and before the Royal Navy have taken, as undoubtedly they will, the measure of the enemy?
Does it really make sense to go on with the rest of the defence programme and not press the question of stockpiling? I fear that it is getting very late for His Majesty's Government to stockpile on their own. Other governments have done it. I had an opportunity the other day of talking to two or three of the leading manufacturers in Belgium. They told me that, apart from sulphur, they are well stocked up in Belgium. We are not; yet we are supposed to be just as good at international trade as the Belgians. I believe that we should find many other countries better off than we are.
Can we have from the Government a clearer statement of where they put stockpiling in priorities? What are they prepared to do to get these stockpiles? Can they tell us now whether there is any hope at all except by international agreement? It is very late in the day, but perhaps it is just possible. What I believe would be a mistake would be to go on in conditions of scarcity, such as we have now, bidding against each other. What are the Government going to do about it? We have not had much in the way of results so far. The Committee would be grateful if we could have some assurance that the common services, machine tools, international negotiations, stock-pilers and raw materials will all be centred in one place and under the responsibility of one Minister, and we should also like to know the priority given to stockpiling.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: There will be no disagreement in the Committee today that stockpiling is necessary, but we may have different views as to what methods of procurement should be employed so that we may have an adequate stockpile in this country. For that reason we cannot divorce today's debate from the debate on raw materials which took place a fortnight ago. It is interesting to find that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) now tends to be more inclined towards some kind of central agency for obtaining these materials. Only a fortnight ago, had he spoken, I am quite sure that he would have supported the proposals for the private enterprise procurement which were put forward by his right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson).
The hon. Member for Chippenham spoke about the lack of foresight on the part of the Government in not laying in stocks before the Korean period and contrasted it by inference with the prevision of private enterprise which had bought stocks when the market was low. I would point out that nickel, wool, sisal, hides, silk, tin and rubber were all obtained on a free market and were all bought by private enterprise; yet the fact remains that the prices of those materials have risen and, relatively to the basic quantities available, all of them are in short supply.
I want to speak for a moment about the question of the rise in prices because there has lately been a trans-Atlantic brawl which cannot have produced any favourably economic results to either this country or the United States. Hon. Gentlemen will recall that recently the Preparedness Sub-committee of the United States Committee on Armed Services presented a report on tin in which they accused the Malayan tin producers of "gouging" the United States. This was rather a modification of the previous attack on producers when, in their report on rubber, they charged the producers in Malaya with "gouging the United States unmercifully." The fact remains that the United States have receded from the technique of private enterprise procurement, which is the method advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite and the method put so passionately by the right hon. Member for Southport a fortnight ago.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Edelman: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, although I would recall to him that a fortnight ago, when I rose in order to present a point to him, he declined to give way. None the less I will give way.

Mr. Hudson: I was not misquoting the hon. Member at the time as the hon. Member is misquoting me this time. I never said anything about private enterprise procurement. I was not discussing private enterprise procurement as against bulk buying.

Mr. Edeiman: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman has now renounced the whole principle for which his party stands. In the past the Conservative Party has always made the claim, whether it be in regard to meat or metals, that the technique of private enterprise procurement is the best way to obtain the commodity cheaply and in full supply——

Mr. Hudson: That is completely incorrect. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that he ought to quote hon. Members in any part of the House correctly. If he will look at my speech on that occasion he will find that I said nothing of the sort.

Mr. Edeiman: In that case I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he now recognises that private- enterprise procurement is not the best way to obtain the raw materials which we need for our stockpiling purpose——

Mr. Hudson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attribute views to me, he should take the trouble to read the speech in which I set out my views.

Mr. Edelman: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, it is quite clear that he is in favour of obtaining raw materials for this country neither by private enterprise nor by central purchase.
I want to deal specifically with the question of tin. The United States Preparedness Sub-committee said the following in the first paragraph of their recommendations:
To avoid further price increases resulting from the frantic and indeed almost hysterical competitive scramble for tin by domestic consumers and the Government, all purchasing of tin metal and concentrates from abroad for


use both by industry and the Government should be centred in a single Government department, as was done during and after World War II.
Hon. Gentlemen, on this side of the House certainly, will welcome the recognition by the United States that the only way in a period of scarcity to obtain the materials which we need vitally for our stockpiles is to have some kind of central control in order to make sure that those materials do not fall into the hands of the speculator who will be anxious to push up the price contrary to the public interest.
In the latter part of this report the American Sub-committee says:
Speculators throughout the world have been acquiring stocks and continuing to bid up the price.
The Americans have recognised quite clearly that, in the case of a commodity like tin, if the market is left to the normal competitive scramble of private enterprise, then the price will be forced up and supplies will be inadequate. In the case of tin, one of the most essential materials for both our current civilian production and our arms production, the Sub-committee says:
… as recently as November, 1950, the representatives of the producing countries… peared still to be in greater fear of surplus tin capacity than of Communist imperialism…
In other words, it is quite clear that at the time that the hon. Member for Chippenham says that the Government should have gone into the market in order to buy tin, the tin interests were getting together in order to keep the price of tin high. I submit that that process——

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Edelman: Will the hon. Member allow me first to say this? As in the case of his right hon. Friend the Member for Southport, I would remind him of two occasions when I sought to put a point to him in the Raw Materials Debate a fortnight ago, but on each occasion he refused to give way. I am nonetheless prepared to give way.

Mr. Fletcher: I want to make quite certain that accuracy prevails. The hon. Gentleman in a letter to "The Times" today, quoted tin as being at £600 a ton when it was released from control in 1949. The facts are that tin was released

in November of last year and that the price was then £1,100. Private enterprise up to then had had nothing to do with fixing the price.

Mr. Edelman: I have here the official figures issued by the Board of Trade. I would only tell the hon. Gentleman that the quotation recently, before the United States decided that it would control the purchase of tin, was something like £1,450 a ton. It was only when the United States decided that it would buy the tin centrally that the price began to decline, both in the interests of the United States and ourselves, and both in the interests of the Defence programme and the housewife at home who has to buy part of her foodstuffs in tins. It is no use the hon. Member suggesting therefore that the fact that tin was put on the free market was in any way beneficial to the public as a whole. It is quite clear that in every case when these commodities we need so urgently for our stockpiling at home have been put on the free competitive market the prices have gone up and the goods have tended to go into short supply.
I do not want to detain the Committee by speaking again on the question of rubber, because I have often spoken on the way in which this country has been forced to pay extravagant prices for the rubber we need so vitally for our defence programme and current production. One thing that emerges clearly from the case of rubber and tin is that it is quite clear that the problem of our stockpiling is not how much we can buy hurriedly with a few million pounds at our disposal. Our problem is the problem of the West. It is the problem we must face in conjunction with our American Allies. We cannot view it in isolation.
For these reasons, it becomes all the more necessary that we should attempt to concert our actions with the United States so that we shall not only be able to get our raw materials at fairer prices, but also that when the United States gets the tin and rubber they need so urgently we shall be able in our turn to ask them, and to ask them with even more moral justification than we can ask them at the moment, to release from their stocks the sulphur we need so urgently.
It is not simply an economic problem, but a political problem as well. It means that not only should my right hon. Friend go into the market, whether by central


purchase or by allowing private enterprise to do its best, but that it is essential that the Government should try to coordinate with the United States their activities not merely through the independent commodity committees, which in my view will prove to be ineffective, but through the establishment of some kind of combined resources board, referred to rather nostalgically in the American Sub-Committee's Report, to obtain a coordinated economic strategy which will have some reference to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Eccles: Does not the hon. Member agree that his policy, if put into operation, means that the Colonial Office must requisition the whole of the output of rubber and tin in Malaya? Is that what he wants to see done?

Mr. Edelman: I think that every effective method must be used. Whatever method may be necessary should be used in order to see that the cost of living is kept down and that we get the physical materials we need. I should shrink from no method, carried out in fairness to the interests concerned, which would bring about these two results.
Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that so far as the coordination of committees was concerned, he must avoid too much over-co-ordination. I am inclined to agree with him. We do not want to multiply the international economic committees which are already prolific, but what we must have, if we are to get the materials at a fair price, is some kind of central co-ordinating body, a body which will enable us to talk on a fair basis with the Americans so that we can get all these vital raw materials that we need so urgently and that are now departing from the market.

4.36 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), will excuse me if I depan a little from the line he has been putting before the Committee, a line which he put before the House a fortnight ago and again today. It seems to me to be largely a question of taking a particular article and arguing from the particular to the general on the theme of private enterprise as against

State buying. I do not think this is really pertinent to our debate today, or to the debate a fortnight ago.
We are presented today with the problem of dealing with the requirements of industry in strategic raw materials. Undoubtedly the country would have been in a much happier position and mood if we had done what many other countries have already done, and that is establish stocks of these scarce materials. To say that, is something very different from giving a carte blancheto accumulate these stocks. I wonder how far accumulation is in fact, feasible at the present time. I think there will be no disagreement that it is feasible only after our full defence programme has been satisfied. No one will quarrel with that.
I should like to ask what is our full defence programme, when is the nation satisfied with the articles that are being supplied, and where do they stop. There is no value or virtue in large stocks themselves. Stocks are only of value when they have found their way into the finished article, whether it be radio sets, jeeps, ships or anything else. It would be madness for us to accumulate stocks and then to neglect our essential needs. The Prime Minister said that engineering must be expanded and talked about new works and activities. Is it really possible to lay up stocks in considerable quantities when we have to meet the essential needs of the country, to adopt a policy of expansion of engineering, while dollar exports rank almost as high as defence, with Commonwealth exports very little behind? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say whether his purchasing facilities will allow him to do all these things at the same time.
It is clear that we are moving back into a world of controls, and that the web we have suffered from for so long is being spun finer and wider. Whether we agree or disagree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North, some form of international control may be desirable as an ad hoc measure. The real problem that confronts the Government is not the invention of controls but the invention of controllers. We have created a machine for which there is no competent mechanic. It is not possible for human grasp to take hold of the enormous implications of all the committees and controls. We have seen from a recent speech


of the President of the Board of Trade just how deeply the tentacles of sulphur and sulphuric acid enter a number of activities in the country. That was only one item. What are we to think when the whole field of industry, and international industry at that, is affected at the same time?
In order to be able to understand a little of this control system it is time that the Government published an edition of "Who's Who" of these various international organisations. We have E.C.A., O.E.E.C, E.C.E., the Brussel Treaty Organisation, the International Metals Conference and the Commodity Groups and the Defence Production Board of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which is now to be replaced by a new organisation for collective mobilisation of industry and finance.
Are we satisfied that there is not a great deal of overlapping and, even if there is not, how are we poor ordinary industrial mortals to find our way about the bodies which control our destiny without some sort of guide as to who they all are and what they all do? However eminent the man, however high-sounding the title of the organisation, are we likely to get much success out of it? History has not been very reassuring. I can remember the muddle of the steel allocations and how shipbuilding suffered so much a few years ago. Then we were told in August and September that stocks were sufficient—that was after Korea— and industry was discouraged from doing anything towards stockpiling.
Nevertheless, during the past year our imports fell in aluminium, in lead, in zinc, in tin, in softwood, in cotton, in wool and in jute goods. The classic example is perhaps sulphuric acid where, on the Government's own statement, two and a half years ago American producers warned us of a scarcity, and in July notice was given that supply for acid production would be much less. Yet, during 1950, we exported a little more sulphuric acid than in 1949 or in 1948, at a time when we had been warned over and over again that this shortage would create grave problems. I should like an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on this point.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the hon. and gallant Member realise that sulphuric

acid does not come under my Vote? It is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade.

Colonel Hutchison: Then I hope it will be mentioned to the President of the Board of Trade, or maybe he will be able to read it, because I hope what I am about to say may be in a minor way a constructive suggestion. There is sulphur obtainable in Chile. It is true that it is obtainable under considerable difficulties but the sulphur position, as a long-term problem is one where we can afford to ignore no source of supply. So I think the Chilean possibilities are worth mentioning.
I should also like to ask what happened in that curious story of the transshipment of 47 tons of molybdenum. I believe this will come under the sphere of activity of the Minister of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman said in December that an examination was being made of how we could stop the trans-shipment to Russia of such valuable and rare material. The Minister said he would look into the recommendations of the Governments concerned and let us know what conclusion he reached. Perhaps he will be able to tell us about that later on?
Finally, I want to make an appeal that industry should be used properly. When hurried and ill-considered steps are suddenly taken because the situation has hit the Government in the face, they only impede the flow of industrial products. Too often industry is presented with a fait accompli, and it is only when things have gone sour that the right hon. Gentleman calls in the industrial specialists to see what can be done to put them right. He really must not complain if industry and trade associations can give no guidance unless they are in, and consulted, from the beginning.
It is quite impossible to advise right hon. Gentlemen unless we know all the facts in the early stages. Too often we feel that we are called in at too late a stage. In some of the industries with which I am connected I have seen substitutes found for many things provided warning is given that there will be a shortage, but it is quite useless coming on Wednesday to an industry and saying, "Your supply of this, that or the other thing will be cut off next week. You must find a substitute." We must have time


to look round in order to make arrangements.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in' a recent speech said that there must be a general directive, supplemented by advice and guidance on industrial problems in addition to statutory controls. That is a very estimable attitude of mind. I like the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) of having a single Services purchasing organisation or supplies organisation for making all the purchases which we are discussing today. It might be modelled on the joint committee with industry which is considering how to tackle the problem of Civil Defence. In that case there are two groups: there is the Government staff group and the industrial consultant group. The problem is put by the Government staff group to the industrial group, who go away and think about it, discuss it amongst themselves, and then bring it back to the joint committee, when some solution is reached.
I understand that the commodity groups in the United States, about which we have heard a good deal, are not to have any representatives of industry or commerce on them. If that is so, it underlines the importance of Government representatives who go there having more information from industry before they communicate with the commodity groups in the United States.
These are defence problems I know, but many of them are industrial problems, and we cannot have the defence weapons we require without the full cooperation of industry. So I beg the Government to use industry properly. It is only too anxious to help. It avoids its own difficulties to begin with, it facilitates the flow of the production which both right hon. Gentlemen want, and so I hope they will set up some system of using industry in that way.

Mr. Jack Jones: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down, would he mind answering a question? Some of us are gravely concerned about the fact that the Government have, on occasions, to pass on a decision which has a grievous immediate effect upon industry. Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman advise the Minister how he can combat the fact that other nations from whom we get our raw material

supplies also make sudden decisions which cause this nation to have to make them? How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman put that position right?

Colonel Hutchison: Surely the rôle of the Government and of the right hon. Gentlemen is to anticipate these difficulties, to try to look ahead and see what supplies can be obtained from here, there and elsewhere.

Mr. Jones: To anticipate decisions of other governments?

Colonel Hutchison: If they can see that a shortage is coming about, they can surely anticipate that other governments will take steps to meet that shortage.

Mr. H. Wilson: How can we anticipate what decision the United States Government will take next week on sulphur supplies to this country for the month of April?

Colonel Hutchison: That is not the problem. The problem is what are we going to do anywhere about sulphur supplies. The right hon. Gentleman has said that representations have to be made to the United States Government to increase the allocation. I say the Government have a great many more things than that to do. They have to consult industry on how to find substitutes for sulphur. They have to hunt up the Chilian production, and so on. While the right hon. Gentleman was absent I gave an illustration of how to obtain a further small supply of sulphur.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I understand, Major Milner, that we are considering the Supplementary Estimates and that policy cannot be discussed. Therefore that limits the contribution we can make. Within those limitations, I appreciated the approach made by the Minister to these Estimates.

The Chairman: I may be able to assist the hon. Member. He is in error in thinking that we cannot discuss general policy because, for instance, machine tools and the purchase of materials are, in effect, services, so they are open for discussion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you, Major Milner. We must all make allowances


for limitations of secrecy, and the difficulty emphasised by the Minister in regard to the purchase of material. Having made those allowances, one is bound to feel uneasy about the large sums involved. For example, the total of the original Estimate, as shown on page 66, was £115 million, and now we have a Supplementary Estimate for another £14½ million. It is upon these additional sums that the Committee are entitled to ask questions with a view to seeking information which will enable us to see the position more clearly than at present.
Page 66 states that the Supplementary Estimate includes
the supply of munitions, aircraft, common-user and other articles and atomic energy …
As far as the additional Estimate for atomic energy is concerned, I do not want to bring out anything which should be withheld, but there are rumours in the vicinity where a certain amount of this work is taking place, that extraordinary sums are being paid out to people engaged in this kind of work. Within recent weeks a number of trade union officials in the Manchester area have raised this matter with me. They are very concerned about it, and I should like to know whether there is any truth in these rumours that large sums are being paid out to people of all grades who are engaged on this work.
With regard to research and development, I want to ask whether we can be given more information. In a large number of industrial establishments, research is taking place, and it must be taking place not only on——

Mr. G. R. Strauss: On a point of order. My hon. Friend is asking me a number of questions on matters which are contained in the preamble on page 66 but which do not appear to be in the Supplementary Estimate. I do not want to be so discourteous as not to reply to him after he has put these questions, but I understand that it would be out of order for me to reply to them or, indeed, for the matters to be discussed. I should be grateful for guidance on this, Major Milner.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who is, of course, quite correct. We can discuss only those

matters which are included in the subheads of the Vote, and not those items which appear merely in the preamble.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I appreciate the point which my right hon. Friend has made.
An additional £3½ million is to be found for machine tools. Then, on page 67, we find that provision is to be made for the setting up of
a pool of machine tools and ancillary equipment and of other production equipment …
In view of the fact that we were engaged from 1935, and especially between 1937 and 1945, in importing a large amount of machine tools, and were also engaged on manufacturing a large quantity of these tools, can we be told what machine tools we are now having to import? I know that the Americans have specialised on certain machine tools, and to that extent I make all the allowances which are necessary, but even having made those allowances, £3½ million is a very large sum. Those of us who are familiar with the machine tool industry require some explanation of what this figure includes. The same paragraph on page 67 goes on to state that
The equipment will be used in Government establishments"—
one can understand that—
and by contractors under schemes of capital assistance, while some may be sold to contractors.…
Already there is a great deal of uneasiness about the disposal of machine tools after the war. It is well known that from 1945 to 1947 and 1948, there was talk in all the large industrial centres about the disposal of large numbers of machine tools for relatively next to nothing. Now we find ourselves again embarking upon a policy of assisting contractors who are engaged in private work—making profit —and they are having this kind of assistance. Before the additional requirement is voted, we are entitled to some explanation.
The same paragraph, dealing with plant, machinery, etc., also uses the words
in advance of delivery of the equipment.
We are bound to be very concerned about this in view of its serious effect upon our export trade. I happen to live in an area which has been more affected by the fluctuations in the machine tool industry than has any other part of the country. In the Manchester, Altrincham, Timper-


ley, Broad Heath, Stockport and Red-ditch districts, a large number of engineers were for years dependent upon the machine tool industry for their livelihood.
We found that at a certain period countries in Eastern Europe were giving enormous orders for machine tools, which were being financed by London and manufactured in Germany, while our own men were lining up at the employment exchange. Later, because of the indignation which this aroused, the Conservative Government introduced a Bill—if I remember aright, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) was connected with it—which made an improvement in the Trade Facilities Act in order to guarantee the insurance upon the large orders that were being given.
Now that I have reminded my right hon. Friend of this, he and other right hon. Gentlemen will readily understand our uneasiness. Between 1925 and 1930, had it not been for Government assistance and the guaranteeing of the insurance payments, thousands would have been unemployed in that area and we would not have been in as strong a position later for embarking on large-scale rearmament. We are bound, therefore, to ask my right hon. Friend, before we vote these large amounts, to state in more detail the policy which his Ministry intend to adopt to safeguard the position and to prevent a repetition of the events to which I have referred.
I read in the Press the other day that the Ministry have appointed seven advisers to advise them on matters of this kind. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether that is correct.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Mr. G. R. Strauss indicated assent.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Ministry have also appointed another three gentlemen. Although they may be first-class men, there are a number of public-spirited people who are very well informed on the machine tool industry and who, I should have thought, should have been included in a committee of this kind. I refer to men like Sir Greville Maginness, for example, and to others, but I mention him only as a typical example of the kind of man who served so well in the last war. There is also, of course, the labour side, and one would have thought that a prominent trade unionist, who knows the

industry and everyday difficulties and who remembers the background of those difficulties, would have been called upon to service upon this committee.
I am uneasy also about the contracts for machine tools for the Soviet Union, about which there was controversy a few weeks ago. In the Manchester area there are being manufactured large machine tools for which not many countries could give orders. Therefore, before we vote these large sums of money we are entitled to know what is to be our policy in regard to those exports. It is in days of difficulty and adversity that we find out who are our best friends and, while there are great political difficulties in the world, that should not affect our trading relationships to the extent which it may unless we keep an eye on this kind of thing.
I ask the Minister: What is to be the policy of allocation of raw materials? For example, I have seen that the motor industry is getting very concerned, and the light industries in the Birmingham area are becoming concerned, about the prospect of shortage of zinc and other valuable materials, and in the Manchester and North Staffordshire area they are becoming uneasy because of the prospects of difficulty over shortages of raw materials. Will the Minister be good enough, before we vote this large sum of £7,700,000, to inform the Committee what policy it is proposed to pursue on the allocation of raw materials? I liked my right hon. Friend's attitude in opening the debate. It was obvious that he is prepared to go as far as he can and I hope that he will go as far as he can, in replying to the many points which will be raised in the discussion.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I only wish to put a few points because the major portion of the Minister's remarks dealt with the machine tool industry. I will not follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), except to say that I do not think he need worry too much about the standing of the gentleman to whose appointment reference has been made.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I was not making any reflection on them whatever. All I was saying was that the record of other prominent men, who played a considerable part in the war, should receive consideration.

Mr. Watkinson: I agree and the hon. Member mentioned one who is doing very valuable work. Will the Minister keep in mind that he is today left with a large number of machine tools, ex-last war, which are not of very much use to anyone? I imagine they have been looked at from the point of view of whether they can be adapted in any way, but I hope we shall not be landed again in this way in the purchases we are making. There have been changes in techniques and manufacturing methods and the remaining tools which we have in stock, through no one's fault, are perhaps out-of-date. I hope every effort will be made to see that we are not again landed with machine tools which have to be stored away and are quite useless.
The Minister said that he was going to talk to the Minister of Labour about the possibility of getting additional labour for the machine tool industry and I would like to say how valuable that would be if it could be done. But, while the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do that, we have to remember that we are not using the machine tools we have on the production lines to their full extent and if we were to get the maximum out of them they should be working 24 hours a day. There is a possibility there of stretching our existing stock of tools now in use by merely utilising them to a far greater extent. I think that it is something at which the Minister of Labour might look. It might relieve further purchases in dollar markets.
While talking of dollar purchases and machine tools from America, I hope that it is not in any way implied that the Americans are not doing all they can to supply us with the necessary tools. I think they will do their utmost, but we should bear in mind that if we had gone to them 12 months ago and given some indication that we were going back into the market for American machine tools we would have had a friendlier reception, because then the industry was working short time. Today, it is quite different. I appreciate that it is easy to "job backwards," but the difficulty today is that we go to them when they have more orders than they can fulfil. I am sure, however, that they will do what they can and, in answer to a Question, the Minister assured me that he was trying to dovetail our orders into the demands for American

home production. I hope that will be done to relieve the burden on the American supply, which is already fully committed.
Will the Minister also bear in mind that the machine tool industry requires certain special steel, for example, special cutter steels and, although "we may make the machines, they will not be very much good unless they have the cutting tools. Will he bear in mind that overall priority should be given to steel for special cutting tools, barbide steels, and so on?
One point on which I was not clear was that I thought the Minister said that £5,500,000 has been spent, or orders have been placed. Are those merely initial payments, or will that represent the total sum?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: They are just initial payments.

Mr. Watkinson: In other words, the initial payments on placing the order, and that was £5,500,000?

Mr. Strauss: Mr. Strauss indicated assent.

Mr. Watkinson: The Minister mentioned the question of exports. There is a point here which is of some importance. If I heard him correctly, he said that we might have to cut down exports to Commonwealth countries to meet our own needs at home. I would like to make one plea in this matter. We have entered into certain definite commitments with Commonwealth countries, certainly with the Canadians, who have gone a long way to help us in getting their machine tool business. Canada has made things easy over electrical standards and that kind of thing and I hope that, in return, nothing will be done to let them down over delivery. It may be wiser to buy machine tools from Germany to help us here, rather than let our Canadian friends down, now that we have gone into their industry in a big way. I hope that letting down our Canadian friends would be the last thing we would do.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Albu: I support the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) in the plea that we should not allow the stockpiling programme to interfere with the rearmament programme itself or with the almost equal priority export programme while building up these stockpiles. These


stockpiles must be built up as fast as we can do so, but there is a serious danger that if we were to build them up in a very short time the results would be so disastrous to our economy generally that we should, in fact, lose much more than we gained. If we do not spend the exact sum we are voting tonight I shall understand it if that is the explanation.
I hope we are being quite brutally frank with our American friends on what the effects may be if we cannot obtain these materials in the course of the next few months. This seems a matter not only for my right hon. Friends now on the Front Bench, but a matter of the highest foreign policy. I would have thought that the obtaining of materials which are available in American stockpiles, or the reduction of the rate of American stockpiling, is a matter of the utmost importance to the whole Western alliance and if we are not able to obtain these materials because they are not made available in the market we should make it extremely plain how far we can go in the alliance. I am speaking very frankly, because I think it is very important that in this House statements should be made as frankly as statements made in Washington. I hope that what I am saying will, in fact, assist my right hon. Friends in their negotiations.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) said how easy it is to job backwards. During the speech made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) I thought how much easier it is to have hindsight than foresight. After all, the decisions which the Government had to make, the number of choices open to them 12 months ago, were very limited. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I will explain why they were limited for any Government, and will be for a long time in this country. After all, we are more dependent on imports than any other country in the world; indeed, to such an extent that it is not comparable to talk about countries like Belgium or any other small country. We are a country which has been making greater efforts to balance our trade, and particularly our dollar exchange, than any other country.
Previously, the attack on us was that we were not building up our dollar or gold balances, and at that time we had to choose whether we should do that or

whether we should buy these materials. It was clear at that time that neither private buyers nor Government buyers expected the rise in prices and the sudden shortage which afterwards took place. The real reason for this is that the supply of almost all these commodities is marginal. Quite apart from the defence programmes of the western world a small increase of economic activity, in the United States— let alone any expansion in the undeveloped parts of the world, where a small increase will mean very great new demands for commodities—will produce a shortage of commodities. That is the problem as it seems to me—and that is why I support my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) in his continual pressure for the building up of some international allocation machinery. I do not believe that the ordinary market mechanism can deal with the violent change from surplus to shortage that occurs when there is even a very small percentage change in world economic activity.
I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that what we need is international allocation machinery as an ad hoc measure. I do not believe that the market will ever be able to deal with this problem again, at least not in a way satisfactory to this country. I believe that under the conditions of the market it will never be sufficiently attractive for commodity producers so to increase their production as to be able to cover the periods when economic activity is at its peak. It is at those periods that we shall always get such a shortage that the market price will rise to such astronomical limits that we shall not be able to afford to buy.
I should have thought that the type of international allocation machinery which we want to build up now is one which we should envisage as having to exist for a long time. It is clear that the economic activity deriving from the Western Defence programmes is going on for a long time, and I do not believe there is any other way by which we shall satisfactorily obtain adequate supplies of raw materials.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend, with reference to the question of countries in the western world, not necessarily in the western defence system, which are not making the effort to balance their pay-


ments, about Germany. Is there anything in the suggestion that the extremely adverse balance which Germany is acquiring in the European Payments Union has anything to do with stockpiling not by the Government but by vast purchases of some of these raw materials by German manufacturers? After all, we have a fairly large economic staff in Germany— J sometimes think it is too large—and I would like to know whether we have any information about that and whether we have taken any action to prevent this taking place?
We have recently contributed a further credit for Germany to the European Payments Union, and I think we have some right to know whether the effect of that has been to increase their imports, whether, quite apart from that, because of their high rate of imports, we are to be asked for further credit; and whether this additional deficiency in their balance of payments is due to their purchase of the materials which we are now trying to obtain for our own stockpiling?

5.16 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) share the failing, only too common among hon. Members on the benches opposite, of inaccuracy in quotation. Hon. Members have accused us on this side of the Committee of opposing the accumulation of dollars. To the best of my knowledge we have never done any such thing. The hon. Member for Coventry, North, has still less excuse, because he only had to look at my speech of a fortnight ago to realise that his statement was completely untrue. He accused me of devoting a lot of time to proposing private buying against bulk buying. As a matter of fact I said:
A good deal of time has been taken in discussing the relative merits of private enterprise and bulk purchasing. I do not propose to spend any appreciable length of time on that topic, except to say that we on this side of the House do not"—
and the hon. Member will be interested in this, because it is precisely opposite to what he said I said—
maintain that private enterprise in purchasing is necessarily the best thing in all circumstances, or that bulk purchasing is necessarily bad in all circumstances. We say that the real defect of bulk purchase is that if the person in charge makes a mistake he makes it on a colossal scale.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2609.]

That is precisely what I hope today to show is the case.
The hon. Member for Edmonton said that it was very much easier to have hindsight than foresight. I agree with him. But it does not lie in his mouth, or in the mouths of any hon. Members opposite, to say that from those benches or elsewhere, because they have been at pains, during the whole period they have been in office, to explain to the country that they had foresight, that they were a Government of planners. What right have they to talk about it being easier to have hindsight than foresight? I would remind the hon. Member of a quotation I am never tired of using; one which he had better learn, mark and inwardly digest, which came from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who said:
The real problem of statesmanship in the field of industry and economics is to see trouble coming"—
that is, to have foresight—
and to prevent ourselves from getting into the smash. We are determined that we are not going to be caught unawares by blind economic forces under this administration.

Mr. Albu: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the change which has taken place is not a question of blind economic forces, but is due to the fact of the invasion by North Korea and the subsequent expansion of the defence programme?

Mr. Hudson: I am obliged to the hon. Member. That is precisely the point I propose to deal with this afternoon. I hope to show, on the strength of his own publications, that that is not true; that prices were beginning to rise and were rising substantially; that trade was rising and prices were rising before Korea; and that was the time they ought to have taken steps to purchase. The hon. Member for Coventry, North, said the Government should try to co-ordinate as soon as possible their work about raw materials with the Government of the United States. I agree. But he gave the whole case away by saying, "as soon as possible." Our case is that the Government ought to have done it a year ago and that what they are doing now is too little and too late—as usual. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for his contribution to the truth of my argument.
I am not in the least surprised that the Minister of Supply spent most of his time


talking about machine tools. I am not blaming him for that, because he gave us some very interesting information. But he spent a much longer portion of his time talking about machine tools instead of raw materials. If I had been in his place, I think that I should have done much the same. Clearly, he has no defence on the question of raw materials and the demand for £7,700,000 for the creation of a stockpile. For the purpose of my argument today, I accept that bulk buying is desirable.

Mr. J. Jones: The Iron and Steel Federation think so.

Mr. Hudson: I propose to assume that Government bulk buying is desirable. What I say is that in the national interest the Government ought to have had efficient bulk buying—efficient Government buying. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary would challenge the statement that the first task of anyone buying in bulk for the Government should be to guarantee supplies of raw materials to manufacturers. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Jones: In normal circumstances.

Mr. Hudson: The Minister did not reply. Apparently, he does not accept that it is the first duty of his Department to provide, let us say, non-ferrous metals. Even he could accept that the first task of his Department is to be able to guarantee supplies of raw materials to manufacturers.

Mr. Jones: As far as possible.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions when I come to them in my speech. Obviously, I cannot answer "Yes" or "No" to a question of that sort.

Mr. Hudson: Why not? The right hon. Gentleman is reluctant to accept the simple proposition that it is the duty of his Ministry to guarantee adequate supplies of raw materials to manufacturers. My second suggestion is that the task of his Department is to avoid undue fluctuations in prices. Does he accept that? I suggest that over a period of years the Department, in buying raw materials, should make neither a profit nor a loss. Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that.

Mr. Jones: Let us, get down to brass tacks. Would the right hon. Gentleman once again tell the Committee how the Government, in the present state of capitalist economy in other parts of the world, can control, for instance, the price of wool in Australia?

Mr. Hudson: I am not in the Department.

Mr. Jones: But the right hon. Gentleman is telling us what to do.

Mr. Hudson: Yes.

Mr. Jones: Then tell us how to do it.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member must not be so naive. It was not I who said that the Government claimed foresight. It was the present Foreign Secretary who said that. I agree with the hon. Member that it cannot be done.

Mr. Jones: Of course it cannot.

Mr. Hudson: It cannot, but I am merely pointing out the folly of a party which is tied to the principle that it can. It is because they are tied to that principle that they have made this mess. I am sorry to have to come back to it, but I repeat that the duty of the Ministry of Supply is, first, to guarantee supplies to manufacturers; second, to avoid undue fluctuation in prices; and, third, over a period, to make neither a profit nor a loss.
I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to say "Yes" to those statements. They happen to be the definition given by the Permanent Secretary of his own Department in answer to a query before the Committee of Public Accounts. Hon. Members can see the statement in the Report of 26th May, 1949, paragraph 3,192.

Mr. Albu: My right hon. Friend did not deny them.

Mr. Hudson: It is rather a pity that the right hon. Gentleman does not know what his own Permanent Secretary describes as his duties.
I suggest that, in the light of what has happened over the last three or four years, the right hon. Gentleman is bound to accept the obligation to provide raw materials in adequate supply to manufacturers. As he will no doubt agree, last year he ordered manufacturers not to hold


stocks of more than three months' supply. That was definitely prohibited. If he is to say to a manufacturer, "You may not buy ahead yourself; you may not cover your own requirements; I will make myself responsible for providing you with them," then I say that there is an obligation—as indeed the Permanent Secretary accepted—on the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to ensure that adequate supplies are available.
If that proposition is accepted, it follows that the task of the Ministry of Supply is always to maintain in this country a really adequate stock. It is not an answer to say that this will involve the Department in holding a stock much greater than that which private persons would maintain. That may be true, but private persons are prevented from acquiring a stock where they might think it wise. Therefore, there is an obligation on the Government, if they make themselves responsible for supplies, to see that there are adequate stocks in the country. That is a task which the Government have signally failed to perform. They have been wrong on every possible occasion over the last 18 months, as far as we can tell. I hope to show how that has arisen.
In 1949 there was a recession in the United States of America, and prices fell as a result. The end of that recession coincided, roughly speaking, with devaluation. I do not think that they were inter-connected; I say that they happened to coincide. By the spring of 1950, that recession had turned into a mild business boom and prices were already getting firmer. I do not think that the Minister will deny that prices were getting firmer all through the spring of 1950, and before Korea. If he were tempted to deny that. I have only to call in aid his own Bulletin for Industry of January, 1951, which states:
World re-armament and strategic stockpiling …"—
This is one of the reasons why conditions are bad—
superimposed on an already high and rising level of demand.
The hon. Member for Edmonton will be interested to know that that comes from the Economic Information Unit of the Treasury. I take it that he will not question the orthodoxy of this organ of the Government. They say that the rise

in prices and shortage of supplies took place before ever war started in Korea and before world re-armament started to exercise its admittedly heavy effect.

Mr. J. Jones: This is an argument that we all get at home. The argument is that when we had the least amount of dollars to spend—when there was a slight recession in the United States and the shelves began to fill up—we should have bought. I remember when my wife could not buy from an empty purse at a time when she saw the shelves filled to overflowing.

Mr. Hudson: That does not happen to have been the procedure followed by this Government.

Mr. Jones: But, that is a fact.

Mr. Hudson: I agree that it is a fact, but the trouble was that the hon. Member or I, being sensible people, under the influence of our wives, who probably do the shopping, would have bought.

Mr. Jones: The purse was empty.

Mr. Hudson: The trouble with the Minister of Supply and, to some extent, with his Department, was that they were continually believing that there was a surplus just around the corner. They refused to believe that the surplus did not exist and that prices were going to rise. They did not believe it in the autumn of 1949. They did not believe it in the spring of 1950, and, so far did they carry it, that in the early months of 1950 they cancelled a Canadian contract for 50,000 tons of zinc. By the early months of 1950 not only were prices generally hardening, but we were rapidly accumulating dollars. It is not unreasonable to believe that in the early spring of 1950 the Treasury said to the Ministry of Supply, "Instead of accumulating all these dollars, which may well help to prove to the United States that it is time Marshall Aid came to an end, would it not be a good idea to spend some—but not all by any means—in buying some raw materials in the United States?" But the Ministry of Supply, still believing that there was a surplus just around the corner, refused to agree.
Over the year as a whole the Ministry of Supply allowed our raw material stocks to run down to the tune of £40 million sterling what time our dollar reserves


were increasing by £576 million. I ask anyone in the Committee whether it would not have been much better to have had £40 million worth more of raw materials in this country today rather than the £40 million of dollar reserves or gold. I think there is no doubt as to what the answer to that question would be.
The fact is that it will be almost impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to get any of these raw materials with which to create his stockpile. Indeed, the figure for which he is asking today, the figure which the President of the Board of Trade will ask us for shortly, and the figure which the Minister of Food will ask us for tomorrow, are themselves insufficient even to restore the stocks in the three Departments to what they were in January, 1950. How can they suggest that they will be able to accumulate any reserves on top of that?
As one of my hon. Friends has said, it would be a very good thing if the Government would consult industry. We believe that would be a good thing, and we also believe that up to now consultation so-called has taken the form of calling industrialists or associations of important manufacturers to the Board of Trade or wherever it may be, and telling them what has been decided. It would have been far better had they been consulted at all stages and asked for their advice. The President of the Board of Trade said last Friday and the hon. Member for Edmonton repeated it today, that hindsight was much easier than foresight. He said that no one had warned him, that no voices were raised about a shortage that was going to occur, and that the rise in prices could not be anticipated.
I do not want to weary the Committee too long, but I trust Members will bear with me if I relate the story of what happened about copper. On 5th October, 1949, the trade suggested a round table talk between the producers, fabricators and the Ministry of Supply to discuss devaluation and its effect on supplies. The Ministry refused. Copper was then available at £112 per ton. The price today is £202 per ton. Zinc was £71 per ton; today's price is £151.
On 2nd January, 1950, the trade warned against the declining stocks of

zinc and suggested that a strategic stockpile of both copper and zinc should be created. The Ministry said they expected things to get better. The price of copper was then £124 per ton; today, it is £202 per ton. The price of zinc was £79 per ton compared with today's price of £151. That is over a year ago. That is the time when the Ministry thought that things were going to get so much better that they cancelled the Canadian contract for 50,000 tons of zinc.
While referring to that cancellation I must interpose that in the "Bulletin for Industry," from which I have quoted, and which is supposed, according to the Prime Minister, to be an objective document, there is a reference to zinc, as follows:
Widely used in engineering, zinc is wholly imported, either as ore or metal. Recently supplies from Belgium and the U.S.A. have dried up, and Australian and Canadian supplies are smaller.
Who would think that it was because of the cancellation of the Canadian contract for 50,000 tons? There is not a word about that. One might think that it was one of those blind economic forces which hon. Members opposite dislike so much. There is no question of the United States Government or any other Government or anyone else but the Ministry of Supply in this country being responsible for cancelling that contract for 50,000 tons of zinc.
I now turn to 3rd April, 1950. The trade again complained about the falling zinc stocks and said that they expected a further rise in the price of copper. The Ministry of Supply said that they expected things to be better by June. Copper was then available at £125 per ton whereas it is now £202 per ton. It does not look as though things are much better. Zinc was £84 per ton; now it is £151. On 5th June the Ministry told the trade that they were doing everything in their power to get more zinc. They still would not allow private importers, who could have got supplies of zinc, to buy on their own. That reinforces the point which I made earlier that the Ministry are solely responsible to the manufacturers for the mess we are in today.

Mr. Edelman: The right hon. Gentleman is attacking the Ministry of Supply on the ground that during this period it has had to pay high prices and has failed to get the metal. Will he also give the


figures for tin, nickel, tungsten, molybdenum and secondary aluminium scrap, which have risen relatively far higher in price than those metals purchased by the Ministry of Supply, and which are equally and, in some cases, even more in short supply?

Mr. Hudson: I should be delighted to do so if I had time but I am giving this one example, one out of many to show that the Government were consistently wrong throughout all these months when there were supplies, and that when the price was likely to rise they consistently refused to take action because they thought that a surplus was just round the corner.
I could go on with further examples, but this one is surely sufficient to persuade anyone so far as zinc and copper are concerned, and these are two of the materials which the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), should know are in shortest supply in his constituency. All I am trying to show is that his constituents are in their present mess because they were not allowed to buy zinc when they could have obtained it, and that the Minister who should have bought zinc refused to do so because he took a wrong view about what was coming.
Imports of copper into the United States in June were 79,400 tons, and we could have got some of this. On 26th August the Minister issued their circular about zinc, saying he had ample supplies —a matter to which I have previously referred. On 10th October he found he had to start a rationing scheme. Immense amounts of copper were exported from this country to China during the summer. Repeated representations were made by the trade against this being allowed, but it was not until 11th September, 1950, that copper exports were put under licence. I have quoted only copper, but I could have quoted more materials had I had time to do so.
The problem that now faces the country and the Minister is where he is to get this stockpile which he is talking about. He can get it from only two places. There is the way suggested by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), by going to the United States and trying to get them to allow us to have a share of their existing stockpile, or arranging that we should be allowed in future to buy, while they hold off the market. Even

assuming that it can be done, we say that it should have been done 12 months ago, and that, if it had been done then, we should not be in such difficulties as those in which we now find ourselves.
The other alternative is to cut off supplies to the domestic market still further and to try to accumulate stocks, but the result of that is dreadful to contemplate. We have been told already that we have to rely on increased industrial production to help to carry the rearmament programme, and, if we are now to cut off still more supplies of raw materials to industry to create the stockpile which we have not got at present, it will clearly prevent that increase in production which we all need and upon which we rely. In addition to that, if many of these raw materials are denied to industry on any scale, it will create substantial unemployment in many of the areas affected.
Therefore, the gravamen of our charge against the Government today is that they have been grossly inefficient, and that the money for which they now ask will provide, owing to rising prices, far less of those raw materials for stockpiling than would have been the case if it had been spent, as it should have been spent, early last year. They have allowed our stocks of raw materials to fall well below the danger point, and the reason is because, if mistakes are made in bulk buying, the results are on a far greater scale and create far more damage to the national economy than would a series of guesses, some right and some wrong, by private persons.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): Mr. Granville.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Diamond? I understand that this Vote and the Board of Trade Vote have to be concluded by 7 p.m. As a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish to speak on the Board of Trade Vote, may we have your guidance whether any time will be allowed for the discussion of that Vote?

The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is another Vote which must be finished by 7 o'clock, and the only guidance that I can give him is


to ask that all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who desire to speak on this Vote should have regard to that fact.

Mr. J. Jones: Further to that point of order. May we have your guidance in this respect, Mr. Diamond? We had an indication that hon. Members on the opposite benches want time to discuss what are very definitely serious matters affecting the nation's welfare, yet the same right hon. Gentleman and the cohorts behind him are prepared to waste all night three nights a week on things that do not matter at all.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before you reply to those points of order, Mr. Diamond, is it not a fact that the House proceeds at 7 o'clock to consider a Private Bill, and that afterwards we shall revert to Committee in order that the Government may obtain this Vote? Is it not right that the grievances of the people should be ventilated before the Vote is put?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I had some talk unofficially with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and with Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and it was suggested that, if the Minister of Supply agreed, we could take the Vote, and, if it suits the Government, we should then be able to have a discussion on the Board of Trade Vote as long as time allowed. I do not know whether that meets their convenience or the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. J. Jones: May I have your guidance, Mr. Diamond, on whether it is in order for back benchers, who have some comments to make——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I gather that the Minister of Supply was rising to a point of order.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: With reference to the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I had proposed to follow him, but when I saw the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) rise from the Liberal benches, I thought it would only be courteous that I should wait to hear what he had to say. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to reply now, I will do so, but if he likes to say a few words, I will wait to hear what he has to say.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I will detain the Committee for only a few minutes, and it is not my intention to follow the general argument which has been going on from one side of the Committee to the other on whether the Government can be severely criticised for having stockpiled dollars as against vital strategic raw materials which are in short supply. Nevertheless, I do not think we shall settle this problem of the shortage of vital raw materials until, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) inferred, we can have something in the nature of international fair shares.

Mr. J. Jones: That is the solution.

Mr. Granville: In view of the announcement of the Chancellor with regard to our balance of payments position next year, it is quite obvious that it will be only with the greatest difficulty that the Government will be able to satisfy the requirements of raw materials for consumer goods and the export trade and, at the same time, supply the re-armament industry and build up a stockpile for strategic reserves.
What we feel about it is that, after all, we are being asked to vote £7,700,000, and I quite appreciate that, for security, marketing and other reasons, the Minister of Supply could not give us a great deal of detailed information today. But I did hope that he would be able to give us some more reassuring information with regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) on whether the Government are proceeding with research to find substitutes for vital raw materials which are at present in short supply and likely to be more so in the future. There was also the point raised by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) concerning the possibility that, if the situation becomes more difficult, the right hon. Gentleman may be forced to impose some sort of allocation of priorities upon industry, for consumer goods, for export, for the re-armament industry and so on. Are the Government getting ready for it properly, and is such a system ready to be put into operation if the market should turn against them?
Much of the dollar balance was created from the sterling area, but now that prices have gone against us, the Government are buying late, and I assume that they will


have to buy at a rather high price. We want some sort of assurance that this buying will be done with some efficiency, and also that the right hon. Gentleman has explored every possibility of the use of machine tools from Germany. Further, I cannot believe that, if proper representations were made to the United States on this question of machine tools, the tools themselves would not be forthcoming, and I hope that Mr. Herod, when he comes here, will be able to help us both with machine tools and with raw materials.
I had also hoped that the Minister would have been able to tell us something of what is happening at the Washington Conference on these strategic raw materials, because this matter can only be settled by international action. We have a representative there, and presumably he will be discussing this question of vital raw materials. I also understand that several committees have been set up. There was a newspaper report that the President of the Board of Trade was himself going to visit the United States—I am only quoting a newspaper report—in order to use his good offices on this vital question of the shortage of essential raw materials. While I agree that Lord Knollys is a distinguished representative with great business experience, I should have thought that the representation on this all-important question should have been at the highest level. One hon. Member said that this is a Foreign Office question as well. I hope that if the point is reached at the Conference on raw materials at Washington where we think that we cannot carry on our programme—both as regards exports and re-armament—without serious inroads into consumer goods, the Government will find it possible to send over there someone at Ministerial level to make the strongest representations to the American Government on the matter.
There is one other point I wish to raise. When listening to the suggestions that were made for international action between the Allies, I could not help thinking of the enormous contribution which the British Empire can make in the matter of raw materials. I am not sure that I would go as far as the suggestion made by one hon. Member regarding one Minister being responsible for the purchase of those materials, but I should have thought that there was a pre-eminently strong argument for setting

up the body for which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith) used to argue, the Commonwealth Commodity and Materials Board.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is real planning.

Mr. Granville: I am sure the hon. Gentleman said that with some knowledge of the inside working of the Board of Trade, and it may be useful to my argument.
It is no good waiting before doing something in this direction. If we do, we may go into the market too late and have to pay higher prices. We may even find it impossible to get raw materials unless we go to America for them. I should have thought this was the opportunity for calling together the opposite numbers in the Commonwealth for the purpose of setting up a Commonwealth Commodity and Raw Materials Board and for dealing with ordinary commodities at the same time. The £7,700,000 for which the Minister is asking us is a big hunk of money for this House to vote, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will tell us that serious plans are being considered for dealing with the situation which we have discussed this afternoon.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: In replying to the various points and suggestions that have been put forward, I will, if I may, deal straight away with the speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville). I would tell him that I can assure the House that this matter will be dealt with in future, as in the past, with the greatest efficiency; that we will take this problem in the future, as in the past, with the greatest seriousness, and that we will serve the nation as well in the future as we have in the past.

Mr. Granville: To make that assurance completely effective, will the right hon. Gentleman delete the references to the past which make it political and give us an assurance that his Department will do what he says in the future?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir, I will not delete those words because I maintain that the protection given to British consumers by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply in carrying out this policy of purchasing materials, and particularly the policy of bulk purchase, is something


which they could never have enjoyed had any other system been in existence. I maintain, moreover, that we have a sane and proper policy in this matter, and that there is no foundation whatever in the accusations that we have been foolish, uneconomical, lacking in foresight, or in any other of the allegations made today. But before I deal with the main criticisms, I should like to deal with some of the minor, though important, points put forward by a number of hon. Members.
The hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) asked whether we were holding adequate consultations with industry about all these matters. Quite frankly, it is always difficult to consult every section of industry on every matter which is likely to affect them. Raw materials affect a huge range of the engineering industries, and one cannot always guarantee to consult every section. But it is our policy to consult industry at the earliest possible stage on all matters of importance. I think that we do so with some success and that our consultation is fully appreciated.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: No.

Mr. Strauss: Well, it is appreciated by those whom we do consult on these matters, because they have expressed their appreciation to me over and over again.
The hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun also suggested that we should have industrial and commercial advisers to help us at the International Commodity Committees which are sitting in Washington. I can assure him that we do have such advisers to help us; we are getting the best technical advice from industry itself on all matters concerning the commodities with which these Committees are dealing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) asked me a number of questions about machine tools. A very large range of machine tools, some types of which are not generally made in this country at all, are required for the re-armament programme. Therefore, it is essential that we should buy a large quantity from abroad. We could not possibly rely on our production here. We can produce neither enough machine tools in this country, nor the special types that we need. I can assure

my hon. Friend that the purchases we are making will in no way interfere with our home industry or its future.
We are trying to dovetail our purchases from abroad with the purchases we are able to make in this country, and, as I indicated in my opening remarks, it is almost certain that we shall have to ask the home industry to expand production in order to enable us to fulfil our defence programme. My hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking that the individuals whose appointments to positions in my Ministry I announced the other day are members of a committee. That is not so. They are each charged with a specific job. One is charged with looking after machine tools, and the others with production matters affecting the air side and the land side of munitions supplies in my Department.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but the machine tool industry have a committee of their own. Have they been, or are they going to be, consulted with regard to the special difficulties that are bound to arise?

Mr. Strauss: There is a Machine Tool Advisory Council which my Department consults on all matters affecting this industry. Such consultation will continue, but what we want is an individual in my Department who will be responsible for providing the machine tools required for the defence programme. Mr. Rawson will be responsible for that.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) asked me a number of questions. I can assure him that we are looking at our stocks of machine tools. As I told him in answer to a Question the other day, most of them are quite useless for our present defence requirements, but where they are or are likely to be useful, they are being reconditioned and put into operation. We shall not overlook any machine tools which are in our stocks and which could be used either by the Royal Ordnance Factories or by any firm concerned with the defence programme.
I entirely endorse what the hon. Member said about the importance of maintaining our exports to Commonwealth countries, particularly to Canada. Our industry has made great efforts to meet Canadian requirements of machine tools, and we are very anxious,


in the interests of our own economy, of the Commonwealth economy, and of our mutual defence needs that that export of machine tools should not be interfered with, but should be continued, and, if possible, expanded.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Al'bu) also asked me a number of questions. He asked, in particular, whether I had any evidence of stockpiling in Germany and whether purchases of materials by German industry may have been one of the reasons for Germany being in a bad position in the E.P.U. We have no evidence about that. It appears that Germany has been buying fairly large quantities of raw materials, but her consumption of such materials has also been going up. I am afraid that, at the moment, I cannot give any positive information on that point. I agree with the hon. Member entirely when he urged that the import of machine tools from the United States is important and that we cannot possibly carry out our defence programme in the time planned unless we are able to get delivery of these tools very quickly indeed. The whole success of our defence programme depends upon out ability to get them quickly.

Mr. Albu: I was not referring to machine tools but to the raw materials which the Americans are stockpiling.

Mr. Strauss: It is also true of raw materials of which we are particularly short. We must have them, otherwise we cannot carry on.

Mr. Granville: If, as the Minister says, the whole thing depends upon America supplying us with vital machine tools and bearing in mind that America has enormous demands upon her production of machine tools for her own re-armament programme, and if we must get these tools over and above our ordinary orders, can the Minister give us an assurance that representations have been made to Washington at the highest level?

Mr. Strauss: I can give that definite assurance. They have been made on the highest level in Washington. I hope we get those machine tools; unless we do so we shall be in great difficulty.
I should now like to turn to the main point in the debate, and that is the charge made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and later by the right

hon. Gentleman the Member for South-port (Mr. R. S. Hudson) that we have somehow been defective in our policy on stockpiling, that we should have bought greater quantities at different times and that, if only we had been wise and had listened to their advice, to the advice of industry and to Conservative representations in the House, we should have had adequate stocks and everything would be lovely. The right hon. Member for South-port largely repeated the interesting, plausible but wholly unsound speech he made a week last Friday about this subject. What.are the facts? There are two aspects which have got a little muddled. One argument put forward is that we should have bought these materials when it appeared to us that prices were going up.
The hon. Member for Chippenham also put forward a most extraordinary argument—that we should have known prices were going up because the value of shares in the mining companies concerned were going up. That is an extraordinary argument because shares go up for a hundred and one reasons. There may be a general rise in Stock Exchange values, or the profit for last year may just have been declared. If any industrialist or consumer is going to assess his buying programme on Stock Exchange values, he is likely to go astray most of the time, I am, indeed, surprised that that argument was put forward.
The fact is that if two or three years ago, we had (a)all the dollars we required and we had (b) anticipated Korea, then we would have bought substantial stocks; but, in point of fact, a year or so ago we could not go into the American market and buy large quantities of goods, whether food or materials, because we did not have the dollars to do it.

Mr. Osborne: How long ago? A year ago?

Mr. Strauss: Say 18 months ago, Secondly, I ask the Committee to appreciated this: there would be no shortage of metals at all at the moment, so far as we can see if it were not for Korea and the consequent big re-armament programme undertaken in America, in this country and elsewhere. If the case of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that we should have anticipated Korea and therefore bought large quantitiesof metal, then it is a permissible


argument. But if, given the impossibility of anticipating Korea, they say, "You should have spent dollars in buying large quantities of metals" when in fact there would today have been no shortage of metals if it had not been for Korea and the re-armament programme, then the argument falls to the ground entirely.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: It is not true, on the Minister's own paper. It is admitted there that prices were rising because of the increased demand before Korea.

Mr. Strauss: I am not talking of the rise in prices. They go up and down for a variety of reasons. I am talking about the thing which matters—the shortage of stocks. I understand the criticism against us is that we are short of stocks because we did not buy long ago. My answer is that unless we had anticipated Korea and the need for re-armament, nobody in his senses would have anticipated a shortage of metal.
I will go further and say that industry was not taking up the supplies it could have bought, of some of the commodities in which we deal—non-ferrous metals, for instance—because it did not believe there was any need to do it and because it believed prices were falling. Neither industry nor the Government nor anybody else had reason to believe there would be a serious shortage of stocks, or even any shortage. Nor, indeed, would there have been one except for the intensive rearmament programmes undertaken throughout the world.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman believe that if he had read reports of his own study groups which were before him and gave him all the facts, figures and predictions, and if he had realised that his own Government's export programme was going up the whole time, as was the case with other countries and it was perfectly obvious from the beginning of last year that there was going to be a shortage in a very large range of these raw materials quite, irrespective of Korea?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I quoted to the right hon. Gentleman chapter and verse. I gave him dates of meetings held in his own Department with the trade, before Korea, on three separate occasions, at which the trade definitely urged him to

increase stocks and buy because of rising prices. What is the good of his coming to the Committee and saying it is not so? It is on record in his own Department if he chooses to look.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It is true that some people thought prices were going to rise and urged us to buy more stocks. Others took the opposite view. I am just coming to that point. It is all very well hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite accusing us of not buying metals six months, nine, 12 and 15 months ago when they were criticising us for over-buying at high prices at that time.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: That is not true.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not true. I remember, for example, the hon. Member for Chippenham attacking me when we had a debate on raw materials some time ago.

Mr. Eccles: What date was that? It is absolutely crucial to have the date.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member for Chippenham was attacking my Department for buying metal on a monthly basis, because by the time the metal was delivered, prices had gone down. He said we ought not to have bought that metal by bulk purchase.

Mr. Eccles: When?

Mr. Strauss: In 1949.

Mr. Eccles: Exactly.

Mr. Strauss: The whole case put against us is that we should have been buying before Korea. I do not think the argument should be confined to the first six months of 1950.

Mr. Eccles: In May, 1949, when I made that remark, the whole price level was going down throughout the world. Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for buying stocks, at least he ought to have anticipated that fall. After devaluation a change took place and he was wrong again. He was wrong when prices were falling and he was wrong when they were rising. He is always wrong.

Mr. Strauss: We were buying metal regularly either at monthly or three-monthly averages throughout. If we had done as the hon. Member for Chippenham suggested, we should have bought less metal and should have less metal in stock today.

Mr. Harold Davies: It is an astrologer they want and not a Minister.

Mr. Strauss: May I come to the interesting attitude of hon. Members opposite, shared by many in the industry, which was expressed in "The Metal Bulletin," an important and entirely independent paper. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made a somewhat critical and very amusing statement, as he often does in his speeches, attacking the Government for buying metal for a stockpile. He suggested that we should not have bought metal and that it was a dangerous and stupid thing to do.
But we have had some more recent and important statements made by an hon. Member opposite who is most knowledgeable about metal affairs and who is heard with respect in all quarters of the House. I refer to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) who has a very considerable knowledge and experience of the metal industry. In making this quotation I am in no way suggesting that he was being foolish to make these statements. He was expressing the typical view held at that time by people who follow these matters. Let me give the Committee quotations and then set them against the criticisms which have been made today by hon. Members opposite.
First of all, when we were discussing the Supplementary Estimates of my Department last year—Estimates which consisted very largely of increasing our stocks of metal, and against which the Opposition voted—the hon. Member for St. Albans said:
I am sorry to say that we are again in this position at the moment. The Minister is holding extremely heavy stocks of metal. The price today is roughly as high as it has ever been since 1917, and the Minister is in a most vulnerable position. What the right hon. Gentleman will do when prices fall, as they will one of these days, is again to come to the House.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 982.]
That view was not contradicted by anybody. That was the view held by hon. Members opposite, who had no right to make the criticism they have done today.

Mr. John Grimston: Was not the whole burden of my argument on that and on subsequent occasions that if the Minister would only allow the London Metal Exchange to re-open he

would hedge that particular risk and would ensure stocks of metal which the London Metal Exchange had always held? I was simply concerned that the Minister should not make further trading losses and that he should get out of the metal business while he was able.

Mr. Strauss: I agree. The hon. Member's main argument was that we should re-open the London Metal Exchange so as to save the Government from making losses which they would do shortly because prices were going down. The hon. Member criticised the Government for holding stocks on which they would very soon make substantial losses.
I should like to quote another criticism of the hon. Member. In June last year, a very critical period, he said:
…the Minister's last chance of getting out of the basic copper market is with him today. Unless he gets out on a rising market, he will never get out without being faced with enormous losses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1251.]
Incidentally, the American price of copper then was 20½; today it is 24½. It has gone up. I do not blame the hon. Member for misjudging the market—anyone can do that; but criticisms have been levelled at us by hon. Members opposite—knowledgeable people—who have said that our stocks were too large and that this was dangerous because the market would fall.

Mr. J. Grimston: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that my argument on the two occasions was perfectly consistent with saying that he must only get out of the metal business on a rising market? He had at that moment a rising market, and he had the opportunity of getting out. By so doing he would have insured himself against making a loss.

Mr. Strauss: Of course, we could have got out but there were other reasons which made it quite impossible. However, I will not go into those reasons now. Incidentally, what would have happened is that somebody else would have made a profit instead of us, but of course the hon. Member could not anticipate that. We were told all along the line that we should not be buying metal at these high prices and holding it. We took little account of price on those occasions. We wanted all the metal that we could get for industry. We wanted as large stocks as we could get, bearing in mind that we could not go out and use our dollars


for buying without limit. We bought substantial quantities for dollars, but we did feel that there was a limit. However, in spite of the demands from hon. Members opposite that we should not hold big stocks, we continued to hold these big stocks.
If it had not been for the Korean situation and the extra demands which were made on these metals as a result of rearmament, leading to increased demand and higher prices, there would have been ample metal available in the world. Therefore—I repeat this point for the last time—it is wholly false to accuse us of lack of foresight, for without the war in Korea we would have been well covered indeed.
The only other matter worth pointing out is that other nations which do not bulk buy also find themselves short today. Some have stockpiles and others have not got stockpiles. Where they have got stockpiles—in the United States, for example—civilian consumption is cut as much and in some cases more than in this country. This is a world-wide phenomenon resulting from the worldwide need to re-arm. As a result of our consistent bulk purchasing through long-term agreements, which have covered two-thirds or three quarters of our major metal requirements from Commonwealth countries, and as a result of our ability to use ordinary market sources and pick up in ordinary times substantial quantities of metal in the world markets, we have served the consumers in this country exceedingly well.
It is true that we find ourselves today with a much smaller stockpile than we would like, but we will continue to increase that stockpile as and when opportunity occurs. At the moment we have not been able to do very much in that direction—through no fault of ours, but because the metal was not available. When I am asked what is our stockpiling policy, my answer is that we want a stockpile but that we are not going to divert metal to it from essential uses. It may be that we shall be able to reduce some inessential uses of some metals, in order to make a stockpile which can, later on, be used for essential purposes. That is our general policy. I am sorry if I have engendered some heat, but I have had to reply to criticisms, and, after this general

explanation, I ask the Committee to give us this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Edelman: Would my right hon. Friend say a word about our endeavours to co-ordinate our stockpiling activities with the United States, which is obviously of the greatest importance?

Mr. Strauss: That is exceedingly important. That is our wish, but we shall have to see what comes out of the commodity Conference at Washington before we can say what success we shall have.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: The Minister made a brief reference to speeches made by myself, and I am sure he will admit that they had one aim and one aim alone, namely, to see that the London Metal Exchange was allowed to re-open. As I see it, a bulk buyer must one day get out of his buying or else stay there for ever. I believe that he must not stay there for ever. He has got to get out, and he should get out at a profit. Therefore, on those occasions I was urging the Minister to get out at a profit on a rising market, because if he did not do so he would be faced with heavy losses. The burden of my argument in every case has been just that and simply that. Any other extract which he likes to make from my speeches will always be a statement made with that view in mind.
As a further confirmation, may I read this extract from the minute of a meeting held in his own Ministry on 2nd January, 1950–15 months ago? This is a representative view of the trade and it is an extract from a minute agreed with his Department:
The spokesman of the Federation"—
which is the trade—
did not view with equanimity the running down of zinc stocks. Quite apart from commercial needs, there was room for stockpiling for strategic reasons of both copper and zinc.
That is the clear view of the trade put to the Minister in a perfectly straightforward manner and certainly nothing I have said in the House has contradicted it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of


March, 1951, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply for the supply of munitions, aircraft, common-user and other articles and atomic energy and for research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto; for administrative services in connection with the iron and steel, non-ferrous and light metals and engineering industries; for the operation of the Royal Ordnance Factories and Official Car Services; and for miscellaneous supplies and services.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI

VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,631,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including the cost of certain trading services; assistance and subsidies to certain industries; certain grants in aid; and other services.

Orders of the Day — RAW MATERIAL RESERVES

6.22 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I gather from one or two informal discussions which I have had with the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) that it may be convenient to the Committee if I spend a few moments saying something about the need for the Supplementary Estimate for the expenses of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade. I trust it will be convenient if I confine my remarks to the subject of strategic stockpiling and do not deal with the British Institute of Management or the British Travel Association or——

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I agree. Perhaps I can assist the right hon. Gentleman by telling him that we are proposing formally to move to reduce the Vote, sub-head J4, by £100.

Mr. Wilson: I understand, then, that it will be convenient if I reply to that point in particular. There is a difference between the debate on this Supplementary Estimate and the one which we have just had in that this is not a new service but an expansion of the service, where more finance is needed. To judge from what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, he does not feel that it is a sufficiently substantial figure in the case of either of the Votes.
I think it is common ground between us that we agree on the need for strategic stockpile reserves—and I will deal with strategic stockpiling rather than with the general raw materials position which we debated at some length not long ago. For some time now we have been working on the question of a strategic stockpile, but I am in a difficulty here—and I am sure the Committee will sympathise—in that I cannot, naturally, say anything in detail about what principles we have followed, or what materials we have concentrated or what are the stockpile figures.
Clearly, we must have regard to the production requirements of industry in a possible emergency. We must have regard to possible interruptions of supply. We must have regard to the calls on the limited shipping space available in time of emergency. Obviously, all these things must be fully considered, and I can assure the Committee that they have been very fully considered indeed by all the Departments concerned, including the Defence and Treasury Departments as well as the Department concerned with procurement. The Board of Trade's responsibilities are, of course, confined to certain raw materials, excluding metals, and also to fertilisers. The Committee will be aware that next year it is proposed to have the whole strategic accounts under a separate Vote under the defence services, which may be more convenient to the Committee.
Long before last autumn, long before Korea, when we brought bulk purchase to an end and handed supplies over to the private trade the Board of Trade were already active in setting aside, from stocks which were then available, certain quantities of particular commodities for a strategic stockpile. When we handed over to private trade we set aside a proportion for a strategic stockpile, and that policy has been pursued for some time. I am sure the Committee will not press me to say which materials and how much, but some of the reserves have been held since 1948, being turned over, if necessary, to prevent deterioration.
Since then, in a difficult situation, we have been endeavouring to purchase materials, particularly since last autumn. The method of purchase varies from commodity to commodity. In some cases public purchase is in operation and we can use that as a means of building up a


strategic stockpile. Where commodities are now bought on private account we have had to make special arrangements with the trade. Sometimes we have arranged to appoint one leading firm, or two, three or more firms, as our agents for strategic stockpiling or sometimes we have invited the trade to tender for supplies for the Government and have bought from the trade in that way.
As far as possible, the aim has been to do our buying as quietly as possible without disturbing the market but, nevertheless, to get ahead as quickly as availability would allow. As has already been made clear by the debate which we have had, for many months the stiuation has been dominated by world shortage and, obviously, it would be wrong to stockpile on such a scale as to bring our industrial production to a standstill or to interfere with our defence programme.
Earlier, either the right hon. Member for Southport or the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles)—I do not remember which—asked what was the order of priority which we intended to follow in respect of stockpiling. The order has been quite clearly laid down. First of all, it must be the maintenance, without providing for any increase in civilian consumption, of current essential production by British industry, including provision for exports. In some industries, of course, we must make provision for an increase for exports.
Secondly, we must bear in mind defence production and thirdly, after defence production and the maintenance of essential civilian production and exports, must come stockpiling. In other words, stockpiling comes after the first priority requirements. Only when these requirements have been met and only when we have made provision for stockpiling can we contemplate the use of materials for increasing the level of civilian consumption. As the defence production programme gets under way it is likely very much to restrict the amount of supplies available for current consumption and it will be necessary, therefore, as we go along, to make further restrictions in the amount available for less essential production in this country.
Before I turn to deal with the materials which have been mentioned, perhaps I should make a brief reference to storage,

which will be very much in the minds of hon. Members. As far as possible, the storage accommodation necessary to house these strategic reserves will be provided by using existing premises so as to avoid to the fullest possible extent any call on the building resources of the country. We are, in fact, already using aircraft hangars, war-time buildings, and so on. Where necessary my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works will use his powers of requisitioning for storage purposes although, even with the fullest use possible of those facilities, it may be necessary to erect some premises for those purposes.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to some of the materials. Naturally, and particularly in view of the short time available, I will not attempt to give a full survey of the position. Moreover, we had a recent debate on that. The hon. Member for Chippenham suggested that prudent private shop keepers would not have allowed stocks to run down. He suggested that the Government have been imprudent. As far as metals are concerned, that point has been fully debated this evening, and there is no evidence at all to suggest that private buyers have maintained stocks when public buyers have not done so.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chippenham that rubber stocks have, on the whole, been fairly well maintained through 1950. But if we take wool, the figures show that stocks fell from 265,000 lbs. in December to 200,000 in March; whereas cotton, which is publicly purchased, actually increased between March and December.

Mr. Osborne: There is a great deal of difference between the rise in the price of wool and the rise in the price of cotton, and the risk of buying at the top of the market in wool is higher. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is throwing away the whole of his case. We have heard always from him and his hon. and right hon. Friends that bulk buying increases the price of raw materials. Now he is telling us that raw wool, which has been on the free market for four years, has increased very much in price, and that the private buyers do not know where they are, whereas in the case of


cotton, which is publicly bought, it is more possible to plan purchasing. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that both commodities, wool and cotton, have been faced with increasing prices. I grant him the fact that wool prices have risen far more than cotton prices, but I hope that he will quote that the next time he makes his speech on bulk purchasing in his constituency.

Mr. Osborne: The reason why the price of wool has gone up is not because of private buying. It is a matter of supply. If there had been the comparatively enormous supply of wool as there was of cotton two years ago in America prices still would not have gone up as much as this.

Mr. Dodds: Heads you win and tails we lose.

Mr. Wilson: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman opposite has tried to suggest all along that bulk buyers are wrong and that private buyers are right.

Mr. Osborne: No.

Mr. Wilson: It has been suggested by a number of hon. Members.
I am not making any complaints about one commodity as compared with another, because in both public buying and private buying we have been faced with very great difficulties. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bebington (Mr. Oakshott) knows, for instance, so far as timber is concerned, that the public buyer and the private buyer are facing great difficulties on the world market today. But the suggestion that if we had had private buying in cotton we should have had greater stocks will not bear examination; and as I have indicated, from the example of these two textile raw materials, the facts have gone entirely contrary to what has been suggested all along by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee.
Let us take raw hides, skins, and leather, which have been on private purchase. These are very much down on 1950. I am not blaming the trades concerned. I agree that they have been up against very serious difficulties of availability. They have taken a particular view of the market, which has not turned out to be right. The conditions were difficult in 1950 for private or public buyers,

and they could not know what would happen to the market, and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to condemn the Minister of Supply for the view he took about the market, even though many of them thought differently at the time.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a delusion. He always forgets, as do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we do not claim infallibility, whereas his party do.

Mr. Wilson: Well, I thought the right hon. Gentleman claimed infallibility for the doctrine that private buying was the right way to do this.

Mr. Hudson: Certainly not.

Mr. Wilson: I thought that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends claimed infallibility for the view that if we had put more materials back to private buying we should have had bigger stocks in hand. That is the view they have taken. Is that not the view of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hudson: I have never said it. The right hon. Gentleman heard me read out quotations from my speech in answer to an hon. Member. We have never said that we claim infallibility. We said that we thought that, on balance, private trade would make fewer mistakes.

Mr. Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not his view, will he explain to the Committee why he voted for the Motion that was discussed in the House about 10 days ago? It was certainly the view put forward by hon. Members opposite that if we had returned more materials to private buying our stocks would have been higher at present. They regretted that we had not done so.

Mr. Hudson: It was not mentioned in my speech at all.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman voted in favour of the Motion. I assumed he believed in what he voted for.

Mr. Jack Jones: That was 10 days ago. The right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind since.

Mr. Wilson: We can see how things have turned out by taking a number of items in succession. There are paper making materials—wood pulps. Stocks are seriously down. I am not blaming the trade because we know the difficulties of the paper situation, and the difficulties concerning paper making materials. Then there is newsprint, but I do not want to start a debate on that.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wilson: Stocks fell considerably in 1950, but newsprint consumers for a very long time were demanding larger newspapers because, they said, their stocks were embarrassingly high. Some of the purchases foreseen in the Newsprint Supply Company's budget were not bought because, in the end, supplies were simply not there. The situation turned out far worse than anyone on either side, in either private or public buying, was in a position to forecast. Then there is esparto. When it was returned to private purchase private buyers held off the market because they thought the price too high, and they were sure it was going to come down. Within two months they were back in the market having to pay very much higher prices. They had miscalculated the market. No blame can be attached to them. Prices and markets last year were in a very difficult and unpredictable position, but I do suggest that it is quite wrong for hon. Gentlemen to come to the Committee tonight to suggest that we should have had larger stocks, and that we should have foreseen all these things, which private enterprise, when it had complete control of the market, entirely failed to see.
I should like now to refer to sulphur, since the question has been raised. One hon. Member seemed to think that we should have been able to foresee shortages more quickly and should have taken the industry into consultation more quickly. I agree with him completely about consultation. In so far as sulphur is concerned we have been in consultation with industry about it for two or three years. If British industry had accepted a little more quickly our warnings about prospective sulphur shortages we might have got our sulphur pyrites production much nearer to present needs than we have. They did not accept

our warnings in one or two important respects on the sulphur position.
I think it right to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison)—I am sorry he is not here—that, so far as sulphur supplies are concerned, over 90 per cent. of our supplies come from the United States. It is impossible to predict the supplies which will be available and, therefore, impossible to have as full consultation with the industry as we should all like to have. Since we got an allocation from the United States the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have had a very long meeting with representatives of industry and asked them for their advice and their help in full discussions about what could be done, but I am bound to tell the Committee that it is still impossible, even today, to say what the supplies of sulphur will be even for the month of April, let alone the rest of the year. On the shortage of sulphur pyrites hon. Gentlemen will acquit us of any failure to consult industry as quickly as we should otherwise want to.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us, in connection with the shortage of sulphur pyrites and the deposits in Italy, which were washed out because they could not compete with the American price, whether, in view of the present world situation, it is possible for something to be done for re-working those deposits in Italy?

Mr. Wilson: We have had discussions with the Italian Government about those deposits.
Perhaps I should tell the Committee that every available source of supply all over the world has been the subject of our inquiry and of high level activity— during the last three or four months particularly. In the case of Italy, there has been a considerable limitation of sulphur buying over the last three or four years because the costs were higher than the American, and the producers did not turn over from sulphur to pyrites, which were cheaper. The shortage has encouraged buying from Italy as much as possible, but there is little to be got from that country and they are over-sold there.
So far as pyrites are concerned, we are examining a large number of possible sources of supply, but I am sure that the


Committee will recognise that it takes a very long time to work some of them up to full production. In other cases it takes a long time for us to build the plants necessary for using pyrites to make sulphuric acid as opposed to the sulphur we have been importing from the United States.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: The Minister has been very careful to try to show the Committee how foolish and mistaken private industry has been in its forecasts of future prices, and he has been trying to claim how clever he and his officials have been in handling these affairs.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to misrepresent me. What I was saying was that it is suggested from the Opposition benches that only private buyers are prudent. I have made it clear that where the private buyers had a completely free hand, even in cases where dollars were not involved, they have not been prudent or better shopkeepers, or produced better records at the end of the day. That was not meant in any sense of criticism. In fact, I went out of my way on each commodity to say that I was not blaming them, and that they were facing difficult conditions.

Mr. Osborne: I do not wish to misrepresent the Minister, but I do want to make a complaint to him from the textile industry, which is affected by his handling of the sulphur position. In the debate on 2nd March, the President of the Board of Trade said:
In October reports reached us that the United States were contemplating export licences and strong representations were made to them about the allocation we should require —representations again at the very highest level.
He then went on to say that for that quarter our allocation was 81,000 tons as against 112,000 tons in the previous quarter. In the same speech he said:
I am bound to tell the House that it presents a very grave picture indeed,
and he suggested that it would also have an extremely serious effect upon employment. I think he will remember saying that there was going to be a cut of some 20 per cent. in rayon production, and he predicted that that cut would have to be increased to 40 per cent.

Mr. Wilson: Might have to be.

Mr. Osborne: That it might have to be increased to 40 per cent. This information was given to the President of the Board of Trade, on his own showing, as long ago as October. With that knowledge in front of him, he went——

Mr. Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman say which information was given to me? Not the allocation figures.

Mr. Osborne: Well, the right hon. Gentleman said:
In October reports reached us that the United States were contemplating export licences and strong representations were made to them about the allocation we should require."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 2570–1.]
Surely on that statement he will admit that in October he knew the position was going to be very serious indeed.

Mr. Wilson: I had no reason to suppose in October that our allocation would be as low as 81,000 tons. It was clear that there would be export licensing and not free buying. Representations were therefore made in the hope of getting 110,000 or more per quarter, but there was no suggestion of that cut at that time, and it came as a very great shock to everyone when the figure was cut to 81,000 tons.

Mr. Osborne: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman did not know the exact cut in the allocation, but a warning was received from the United States which made it quite clear to him that there would be a shorter supply for the next quarter than he had been having previously or those export licences would not have been suggested by the United States authorities. I would remind him that he went on to say that it presented a very grave picture indeed.
This was information available to the right hon. Gentleman, as he himself says, last October, yet on 8th November, 1950, he went to a luncheon of the British Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Federation in Manchester and made a speech, a great deal of which he devoted to the supply position of rayon. I remind the Committee that, as he admitted, he had the knowledge at least a month before that there was going to be a shortage in the supply of rayon. This is what he said in that speech:
We have seen great increases in the products of these industries. The production of


rayon staple fibre was £11 million in 1935. By 1945 it had risen to over £53 million, and this year, in 1950, it has been running at the annual rate of £171 million.
He went on to talk about the importance of the export of this basic commodity. I shall be pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman the cutting containing his own words when he went on to urge industry in Lancashire to use more and more rayon in helping out with the difficult supply position of cotton and wool. He said that we must use more fibre; that we must substitute pure rayon for the staple production of either cotton or of wool. It seems to me that he not only did not use the information that was at his disposal, but that he entirely misled industry.

Mr. Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly read to the Committee that section of the same speech where I warned the rayon industry about the serious sulphur position and about sulphuric acid? Would he read us that part of the same speech where I explained to the textile industries the hopes we all had, and said that rayon production—because it was an exhibition organised by the rayon industry-might be frustrated if we could not get essential supplies of both rayon and cellulose products? So as not to mislead the Committee, would the hon. Gentleman read the section of my speech dealing with those supplies?

Mr. Osborne: I am quite willing, but I do not want to keep the Committee long because other hon. Members wish to speak. I would point out, however, that there is not one word in this report about the shortage of sulphur.

Mr. Janner: Then it is a bad report.

Mr. Osborne: I am taking the report from a responsible trade paper, in which the Minister is urging industry to use more rayon which he himself knew was not available. Certain sections of the trade have asked me to say this—[Interruption.]Why not? It is my job, in a small capacity, to try to keep some hundreds of people employed, to find them regular work and good wages, and I am dependent upon the supply of rayon. Lots of men in my position have to look after their jobs and their wage packets, and we were encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman to use more and more rayon

at a time when the Minister knew it would not be available. I therefore say that he did not use his information wisely. that he misled industry, and when he says to me that private industry has not been very wise I say in reply that at a time when he had much more information than private industry had, he did not use that information wisely, and he misled the Lancashire trade and the other trades dependent upon rayon.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman keeps on accusing me of misleading the trade. Will he now cease misleading the Committee and quote the particular section of the speech I have asked him to give to the Committee.

Mr. Osborne: I have tried to explain that in the report sent to me there is no such quotation, and I cannot read a part of a speech I have not got. I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's word, of course, but I have no evidence that he spoke about it at all. All I have got is his request to the industry to use more and more rayon which he himself knew a month earlier would not be available. I accuse the right hon. Gentleman of misleading the industry; I accuse him of making it much more difficult for us, and I warn the Committee that in the textile industry—it may not be as important in the heavy metal industries which we have been discussing—it will lead to short time, if not unemployment. The Minister knows quite well that it will cause the cost of clothing to rise again, because we were hoping to substitute rayon for the more expensive fibres.
I am accusing the right hon. Gentleman of this. He did not use intelligently the information which was available to him. I think that it is only fair to say, on behalf of rayon users, that they have a complaint against him. I ask him one question. It has been said in the industry that the warning of a 40 per cent. cut may have been too severe. Can the Minister tell the Committee now if there is any hope that the cut of 40 per cent. in rayon supplies is likely to be less than that figure of which he warned us 10 days ago?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move that Item Sub-head J.4 (Purchase and Storage, etc., of Strategic Reserves) be reduced by £100.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I intend to confine myself entirely to that Vote. I think that as a result of my right hon. Friend's opening remarks we now have a somewhat clearer conception of what the Government have in mind by a strategic reserve of raw materials. I must confess that as he spoke the idea of a large reserve for strategic purposes, whether for maintaining the re-armament programme or for keeping in reserve in the case of hostilities, became more and more remote. The main purpose of this Vote seems to be concerned with obtaining scarce raw materials to be made available for current production. I think that that is the right emphasis at present.
The problem arises in the main, I think, from the severe shortage of world supplies. One lesson that we ought to learn is that in past years we have been far too prodigal with the world's resources. We must take into account that if we and others are to preserve our position as industrial nations in the world in the future we have to be far more careful of the use that we make of the natural resources at our disposal, and at the same time we have to go ahead with all the means at our command with research to find substitutes by way of synthetic materials.
The problem is further complicated by the grave maldistribution of these materials between countries and between users at home. I should like to refer to the figure given by my right hon. Friend on 2nd March with regard to wool. It was quite clear, he said, that the United States Administration intended to build up a stockpile of £350 million worth of raw wool representing 35 per cent. of the entire export surplus from five exporting countries. If one single country is to take that share out of all the available supplies, it must mean serious scarcity to countries such as ourselves.

Mr. Osbome: Did the Minister say that he had authority for making that statement, because it is of the greatest importance to industry if America stated that they were going to stockpile to that extent?

Mr. Chetwynd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to check that assertion, and I am hopeful that he will be able to confirm or

deny it. That, however, does not affect my argument that we have to see that we get a fair allocation of what is going. We have to change the methods of allocation. It does not seem to me that we are tackling this problem effectively in allocating what we have been able to buy only at very high prices and in very small quantity. We should be more concerned with purchasing by international agreement what is available as cheaply as possible and in the greatest quantity possible, and then deal with the allocation of it.
Let me refer to sulphur and wool-in particular. How can we possibly stockpile sulphur and wool at the present time when we need it to maintain our industrial economy even at a reduced level? It is quite impossible to do that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue a very firm line with the United States on this policy. We have been now arguing and debating the allocation of sulphur with them over a long period, and 10 days ago we were expecting the Commodity Committee to come to some decision on the question of sulphur for our needs here. I understand that no decision has been reached, but our industry must go on. Plans must be made for re-armament, export and so on, and I believe that we do not know even yet what the April allocation is to be. I urge the Minister, with all the strength I can, to use all his endeavours to get some settlement of this matter immediately, even if it means paying a personal visit to America himself.
There is a run at the moment on all forms of clothing. People are ordering suits far beyond their needs. I believe that there is panic buying. I should like to put this point. Can my right hon. Friend give some indication that, unless we can get increased supplies of wool fairly soon, he will be willing to reconsider reimposing clothes rationing? I know that that may be unpopular and take a lot of administration to put it into operation again. It seems, however, only right and proper that we should go back to some system of fair shares of clothing rather than allow some people to buy as much as they can afford while others have to do without.
It is essential for our own strength and the strength of our Allies that we maintain a sound healthy economy at home. I would point out to my right hon. Friend


and to the United States that it is no use setting up a stockpile for the sake of sitting on it, while our industry is in jeopardy. That is the surest way of weakening our position. We have to make certain that we keep a balance between our stockpiling and our reserves for essential industries and our supplies for consumer use in the immediate present. Our main problem seems to be not only sulphur but other supplies, and if my right hon. Friend can give some reassuring information, particularly on sulphur, I think that he will deserve the credit of the House.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: In the two minutes left, before 7 o'clock, there will probably be only time for me to make reference to one point mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade in his speech. A rather curious position arises under this Vote for the stockpiling of strategic raw materials, other than those dealt with by the Minister of Supply. It is a curious position because approximately one-half are bought on public account and one-half on private account.
With cotton on public account and wool on private account, matters are fairly straightforward. In the case of the timber group, the position is peculiar because all hardwoods are at present purchased on private account, but only approximately one-half of softwoods are purchased on private account and the other half on public account. The position is exactly the same with plywood, an essential commodity in time of war for aircraft manufacture and many other purposes, where again a percentage falls on private account and the balance on public account, according to the part of the world and the foreign currency necessary to be employed.

it being Seven o'Clock,The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction ofThe CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No.7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — SHEFFIELD EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to extend the boundaries of the county borough of Sheffield to include land urgently required for housing and for no other purpose. It proposes that 8,500 acres in the West Riding of Yorkshire and in the Wortley Rural District Council area, and 1,425 acres in the Derbyshire County Council area and in the area of the Chesterfield Rural District Council be incorporated in the City of Sheffield. After consultation with interests affected, the promoters have decided to modify the proposals on the Committee stage, and to reduce the area proposed to be taken from the West Riding of Yorkshire to 6,100 acres, which gives 2,261 acres suitable for housing, enough, that is, for 13,500 houses or an estimate of six to seven years' building programme in existing conditions.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: How many acres is it proposed to take from the Wortley Rural District Council?

Mr. Mulley: The whole of the acreage proposed to be taken from the West Riding of Yorkshire is also from the Wortley Rural District Council.

Mr. Colegate: What is the reduced figure?

Mr. Mulley: The reduced figure is 6,100 acres. That is the suggestion which the promoters will put to the Committee, but, of course, the Committee will not necessarily accept that. This will give about a six to seven years' building programme under existing conditions.
We should, of course, like to accelerate the rate of our building programme and on our pre-war record, when we were building 3,000 council houses and 1,500 private enterprise houses in a year, this land would last for only three years. In Derbyshire there are 854 acres of building land which are already owned by the Council, and which are in the course of development.
I give the House these details, but the House knows that if the matter is referred to a Committee, which is the purpose for


which we ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, we shall not only have to establish our claim and need for the land, but also with expert witnesses, who can be cross-examined by the opponents of the Bill—they also can submit evidence—we must satisfy an impartial Committee of this House before they endorse our claim to any particular piece of land. It is the custom of the House to allow a local authority to state its case before the Committee by granting Private Bills a Second Reading. There are further opportunities for the House to consider the Bill on the Report stage and also on Third Reading if it is desired. I wonder if the attempt to defeat the Second Reading is, in effect, an admission by our opponents, and the Wortley Rural District Council in particular, of the strength of the claim which they know we can put before the Committee.
I know that very many hon. Members will think we are asking for rather a lot in asking for 7,500 acres to provide 3,000 acres of building land. But to those who may be unfamiliar with the locality I would point to the special problems of configuration and mining subsidence with which we have to contend. Sheffield is built, I think, on seven hills, and much of the land in the vicinity is impossible for housing purposes and even after its incorporation in the city, if we get what we desire, it will be retained in its existing use.
We have invited the opponents of the Bill to submit alternative proposals as to how we could get this amount of building land without taking in so much additional land, but no alternative scheme has been submitted. No doubt this point will receive the special consideration of the Committee. The House will understand that without maps I cannot develop that further tonight. I would just say that the West Riding County Council, because of the responsibility of providing schools, and so on, are very anxious that that part already developed by the City of Sheffield shall be incorporated within its boundaries, and for that reason I understand are anxious that the Bill should go upstairs to a Committee.
Before turning to a statement of our housing needs, I should like to make a point of substance for our cricket enthusiasts. By extending the boundary of the city into Derbyshire we shall, of

course, extend the area of birth qualification to play for Yorkshire. It may be that another Len Hutton, Hedley Verity, Wilfred Rhodes or Herbert Sutcliffe may, in this way, qualify to play for Yorkshire. Incidentally, football enthusiasts may be interested to note that tonight we have the unusual spectacle of "Sheffield United" on what can I think be called "Sheffield Wednesday." The sinking of this rivalry tonight may indicate to the House the importance of this Bill to the people of Sheffield.
I will not weary the House with a long discourse on the Sheffield housing problem, but will rely on the bare facts to speak for themselves. We have an acute housing problem; a waiting list, which was revised as recently as December last, of over 29,000 families; and, in addition, a further 20,000 houses which have been classified as unfit for habitation, and whose tenants are not allowed to be on the waiting list. As many as 12,720 of these houses were condemned at the outbreak of war and another 7,220 have been since classified as unfit. We need a further minimum of 50,000 new houses to tackle the problem, and although last year we achieved our quota, our whole policy depends on acquiring more land outside the city. If this Bill does not go through in sonde form our whole housing programme will be halted in about 18 months' time. If we are given all the land for which we now ask, it would only provide 15,000 of the 50,000 houses we require and a programme, for the most part, of seven years.
I would emphasise the seriousness of the position. Every step to economise land within the city consistent with decent standards has been taken. Many blocks of flats have been built and no suitable sites remain until the condemned houses are cleared, which is now impossible. The only alternative to the extension of boundaries is a continuance of compulsory purchase orders outside the city, that is on the land now proposed to be incorporated. The need to go outside the city boundaries was endorsed by the Ministry of Health on four occasions, when compulsory purchase orders were granted.
The greater part of our building since 1945 has been under compulsory purchase orders outside the city. The experience of Sheffield since 1945 has been that that procedure has two serious conse-


quences. The first is delay. Under the procedure of building outside one's own boundaries under a compulsory purchase order, planning permission has to be obtained from the county council and bylaw permission given by the appropriate rural district council. In each case we have experienced delays of up to 18 months in getting these permissions.
Second, and this is a point to which I would ask people who take certain views about big cities, and so on, to give special attention. We need to get planning permission from the county council but the planning authorities insist upon planning the city's overspill population on rural lines. Sheffield has, therefore, experienced cuts up to 25 per cent. on the sites we have planned. The city has been forced to become bigger than it wanted to be, if we had been allowed to develop on our own lines and through our own planning authority. It is the physical fact of building which determines a city's size and not the artificial line on the map which represents the boundary.
I recognise that this creates a problem for the rural authority. It is wrong to assume that the inhabitants of rural districts are always opposed to being incorporated into the towns. I have received a letter from a resident of Wortley Rural District Council, who lives in a district which is not part of, or concerned in, developments by the City Council. I will read a short extract to the House. He says:
One of the opposing councils is Wortley Rural District Council, but had they consulted the wishes of their ratepayers they would have found an overwhelming desire on the part of the latter to become citizens of Sheffield. To the best of my knowledge they have not done so.
This letter was written on 8th February. It goes on:
I have asked a number of people to express an opinion on this vital matter, and in only one instance (the clerk to the local council)…have I found any desire to remain under the Wortley Rural District Council.

Mr. McGhee: May I ask my hon. Friend whether his correspondent is an employee of the Sheffield City Council?

Mr. Mulley: I have only the letter. I have urged my correspondent to communicate these views to his own Member of Parliament, which I believe he has done.

Mr. Colegate: It is the rural district council who are opposing the Bill. Surely it is no use trying to go behind them on the strength of a letter from an individual.

Mr. Mulley: I wish the hon. Gentleman had been a little more patient. I was just going to refer to a petition with 127 signatures which I have also received. These people have only written to me because they know I am taking an interest in the Bill. I think they have also written to their Member, and perhaps he will tell us whether that is so. I believe that meetings have been held in the district, and that my seconder will be making reference to that fact.
This question involves the whole issue of local government. I would ask hon. Members, whatever their views may be on local government, to answer this question before they vote tonight: Which is more important, an acceleration of housebuilding to which both sides of this House are committed, or the uncertainty of local government reform which cuts right across party divisions? I would ask hon. Members to approach this matter not from a theoretical but from a practical and human angle. I would ask any hon. Member who is disposed to vote against us tonight if he will tell the House, in all sincerity, whether he would say to a constituent who brought to him one of the many distressing housing cases which all of us meet in our constituency work week by week, "I cannot support your claim for a house, because it would mean the big city thrusting its tentacles into the countryside." If hon. Members could not say that to their own difficult housing cases, can they expect Sheffield Members to go back and say it to theirs?
Let me put the same point in another way to hon. Members, according to their party political affiliation. Could they go on a public platform and defend the fact that the housing policy and programme of Sheffield had been reduced because of the over-riding importance of local government reform, and because of the need to protect the small authority against the large?
We ask the House to allow us to proceed with our housing programme with the utmost vigour. That is the issue before the House. We ask for the right to submit our claim for this


purpose to the full and expert scrutiny of a Committee of this House. Our opponents have an equal right to do the same under the procedure of the House. That is the principle embodied in the Second Reading of the Bill, which I ask the House to approve tonight.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I beg to second the Motion.
I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) upon his speech and upon the very moderate and convincing way in which he put it over. I submit that a prima faciecase has been made out that the Bill should be sent up to the Committee for further consideration. I would point out to hon. Members who may wish to oppose the Bill that in my opinion the onus of proof is upon them to show that there are over-riding reasons why this House should reject the Second Reading of the Bill and not allow it to go to the Committee for further consideration.
There are three main categories of objection to the Bill. One is from the county council, the second from the agricultural interests, and the third from rural district council interests. In the short time I wish to detain the House, I shall argue that all those interests can well be met by discussion upstairs before the Committee.
The first objection is from the county council. I give it as my opinion, and I stand to be corrected, that the county council of the West Riding does not wish to throw the Bill out on Second Reading. I am fortified in this opinion because I know that the county council introduced an earlier Bill with a provision that some of the land that we are now discussing should be incorporated into Sheffield in the same way as is proposed in the Bill.
Secondly, I want to turn to the question of the agricultural interests. We all appreciate this country's need for the production of food, but that has to be weighed against the other needs of housing and production, and the House must tonight consider where the balance of these interests lies. I want to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, by telling the House that the amount of agricultural land covered by the Bill originally was considerable, but, owing

to pressure by agricultural interests, it has been agreed that, if the Bill goes to Committee, over 2,000 acres will be omitted from the plan. That has been done expressly to meet the agricultural interests.
There was also an area of 800 acres which the city would have liked to have incorporated in the Bill, but, again owing to discussions with agricultural interests, that area has been omitted. Of the 6,000 acres which we are considering in the Yorkshire area, another 2,000 will still remain for agriculture. Although the area is incorporated within the boundaries of the city, it is not proposed to build houses on that land and it will be left for agriculture. The question of the remaining land should be open to discussion on the Committee stage. I submit that there is no special reason why, on these grounds, the Bill should be thrown out on Second Reading.
I now turn to the third category of objectors. They are the rural districts, and particularly the rural district of Wortley. Again, as far as I know, there has been no great public outcry in the rural district. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, said, meetings have been held. One was held just inside the city boundary by the city authorities. It was advertised freely in the area which was to be taken over on three successive occasions in the newspapers, and over 200 people attended it. When the question was put to the vote, only 17 voted against the proposed Bill. I ought in fairness to say that another meeting was held inside the Wortley area under the auspices of the Wortley council, but, unfortunately, no record or vote was allowed to be taken at the meeting. I think I am putting it fairly to the House when I say that there is no great outcry in the areas concerned against the Bill.
I now turn to the wider objection, which hon. Members from other parts of the country may have experienced, and that is that local government re-organisation may take place under the Minister at some future date and it is unwise therefore to deal with such matters as are raised in this Bill at this stage. In reply to that objection, I would say that the former Minister of Health, who is now the Minister of Labour, made a statement on the point on 2nd November. 1949. during the Second Reading of the Local


Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Bill. He made a point which I am now also trying to make. He said:
Where local authorities urgently need to alter their boundaries—that is, where they require to have land in order to build houses —then we have said that, as far as the Government are concerned, we are prepared to support proposals of that kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 517.]
I suggest that we must prove to hon. Members that there is an urgent need for housing in Sheffield, and that, if we can satisfy them on that, we shall overwhelmingly have made our case that the Bill should be sent to a Committee. We have listened to the housing facts given by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park—29,000 households waiting for houses, a greater number waiting in overcrowded conditions; and the insufficiency of land within the city—and I feel that he has made that point.

Mr. David Griffiths: If that is the case, how is it that the Sheffield City Council did not make overtures to the rural district council while building was "stagnant" during the war, realising the necessity for housing which there would be immediately after the war?

Mr. Roberts: That question ought to be addressed to the friends of the hon. Gentleman under whose political sway the council has been organised for a number of years. I would rather not want to make points such as that unless I am forced to do so at this stage.
I want to come to the question of whether or not there is land within the city which might be used by the council instead of going outside the boundaries. In fairness to the House again, I must say that there are open spaces within the city, but I want to ask hon. Members whether they would use those open spaces for the building of houses. There are areas of parks and open spaces for public recreation; there are some heather moors at 800 feet which are not suitable for building; and there are water reservoirs and water protection sites; but, if these sites are excluded, there remain only roughly 300 acres within the city boundaries on which houses can be built and it may be that by the time this Bill becomes law these sites will be used up. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park

has dealt with the point about the compulsory purchase orders. Sheffield has had experience of that, and I commend the points he made to hon. Members.
We are not asking for something the planning of which will stretch over a vast number of years. We are not asking for an area which is beyond what is immediately necessary. The demand for houses has been put at 29,000. The number of houses we propose to build under the scheme is over 15,000. The rate of building which the city should pursue is, I suggest, in the neighbourhood of 2,500 a year. Recently the figure has in fact been at 1,500. In this House I have maintained, and I do maintain, that Sheffield ought to have another 1,000 licences a year. Sheffield recently has had another increase of 200 licences, but I maintain that we could build an extra 800 houses a year if we were given the licences. If we divide the total of 2,500 into the 15,000 houses which we propose to build under the scheme, it amounts only to a six-year building programme; and, in the planning of buildings and sites at this stage, it is not excessive to ask the House to give us powers of authority for six years.
When they are considering the City of Sheffield, hon. Members from agricultural or urban areas must bear in mind the thousands of constituents, from the constituents of all the hon. Members from Sheffield, who are living in conditions of overcrowding which are really distressing. Every hon. Member must weigh in his own mind whether the interests which he feels should be represented outweigh the misery and unhappiness which will be caused if the housing problem in Sheffield is not relieved. That is the issue which I put to every hon. Member in the House. The problem is one of a balance of interests, but I submit that the interests of the expansion of Sheffield and the need to get rid of the appalling housing problem override those other interests, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can go to a Committee.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. McGhee: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) made one or two slight errors in his speech. He said, for instance, that the interests affected by the Bill had been consulted. That is not true. The truth is that the Bill was drawn up


by the Sheffield City Council without any consultation with the Wortley Rural District Council. No consultation took place until there had been some move in the House to oppose the Bill, and then the only consultation that took place was with Ministry of Local Government and Planning officials.

Mr. Jennings: Does the hon. Member dispute that approaches were made, although consultations may not have taken place, by the representatives of the City Council?

Mr. McGhee: Yes. After the Bill had been objected to in the House, approaches were made on the lines that a new line, drawn up by the Sheffield City Council in consultation with the Ministry officials, was presented to the Wortley Rural District Council. If that is consultation. then I do not know what consultations are.

Mr. Mulley: I understand that approaches were made to the Derbyshire County Council, and that they replied that their policy was not to consult on matters of this sort. There have been discussions with the West Riding. It may be true that Wortley was not consulted until after discussions with the county councils and the officials of the Government Departments concerned. I suggest that it would be pointless to have discussions with the rural district councils until there was a prospeot of the "big guns"— the county councils and the Ministers concerned—agreeing. In fact, the new line proposals were left at the office of the clerk of the Wortley Rural District Council and there was no reply for a fortnight. The town clerk of Sheffield wrote again, and then all he received was a reply that the proposals had been considered and there was no comment to make except for their continued opposition.

Mr. McGhee: We have now had a third speech from my hon. Friend, and the net result is that he admits what I said, that before objections were taken to the Bill there were no consultations with one of the interests affected. I am not speaking for the so-called "big guns."
The object of the promoters is to obtain land for their urgent housing needs. That is the sole object according to a statement issued to Members of Parliament. It has been the whole object stated at the so-

called public meetings in support of the Bill. If I can show that Sheffield's urgent housing needs can be satisfied within their own boundaries, then I think I ought to get one home against the Sheffield City Council tonight. It is all very well to say that we should not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but should let it go upstairs, but a large sum of money is to be spent by the Sheffield City Council, part of which, incidentally, is my money, as a ratepayer. A large sum of money will have to be spent by the Wortley Rural District Council and on counsel opposing the Bill. That is unnecessary, and I am here to save public money.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: That is a new line for the hon. Member.

Mr. McGhee: I want to prevent public money from going into the pockets of wealthy lawyers and land-owners, but not from going into the pockets of the working classes.
The promoters say that they require the land because they have an overspill population of 83,000. I do not want to go into a long list of comparisons of the densities in the various cities of the country, but I would remind the House that the density in Birmingham is 21, in Liverpool 28, and in Sheffield 13. There does not seem to be much need, therefore, for more land.

Mr. Crossman: Is my hon. Friend telling us that he blames Sheffield for not being as overcrowded as Birmingham?

Mr. McGhee: My hon. Friend, as usual, is a little too quick. I was going on to say that this is what I should have expected in a city controlled for 25 years by a Socialist council, especially when, for the first 12 years, that city was led, by the greatest local administrator I have ever known, Albert Rawlinson. To accommodate this 83,000 they are seeking to take in 6,210 acres, and of that number they are to use only 2,261 for building purposes. The rest is either unsuitable for building purposes or is fully developed. It means, to put it in round figures, that they are taking in 6,000 to get 2,000.
I am prepared to say, after living in Sheffield for 25 years and having heard the views of an expert who has examined the available land in the city within the


last few weeks, not as the Ministry of Local Government and Planning did, taking the word of the Sheffield City town clerk—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] Yes. What has happened is that we sent out experts to examine the land and in Sandy-gate, Fullwood, Dore, Totley, Beauchief Greenhill and Gleadless there are 2,493 acres of building land idle at the moment.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Does not the hon. Member agree that these sites are at least six miles from the other boundary of the city?

Mr. McGhee: I agree with that, but the truth is that these areas are in the west end or the south end of the city and the Sheffield City Council do not want to put working-class homes up against the "snobberies."

Mr. Jennings: It is a Socialist council that the hon. Member is talking about.

Mr. McGhee: I am beginning to be amused by everyone's anxiety. These areas are in the west end of the city, and the people who live there do not want council houses nearby. They are prepared to live and to thrive on the working classes, but they will not live beside them.
Another reason is this. The great hereditary landlords in the City of Sheffield, after the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, which has not been very successful—[Interruption.] With regard to development charges, it is not very successful. To evade the provisions of that Act, the great hereditary landlords decided that there was no more land to be sold in Sheffield, that for the future it was all to be leasehold; and so they evade the provisions of the Act as regards selling at the present use value. The Sheffield Council will not apply purchase orders against these people as they might well do.
The other argument is that if council houses are set down in the wealthy residential areas, they will depreciate the rate-able value of the city. That is the usual story which we have been told, but it is in direct contradiction to what the late Minister of Health told us when he said that he wants the populations of the great cities to be mixed.
The Sheffield Council are very timid about applying purchase orders within

their own city, but when an area is added to the city no timidity whatever is shown. Not only do they apply the purchase orders outside the city, but they go further and apply court eviction orders against sitting tenants outside the city. I have a case at present in which I am asking the Ministry of Local Government and Planning to intervene with the Sheffield City Council, who have obtained a possession order against an old and respected resident of the Wortley area. The truth is that the Sheffield City Council are frightened to apply compulsory orders against the great hereditary landlords—the Duke of Norfolk and Earl Fitzwilliam; but they have no compunction about applying them against the small farmers in the Wortley rural area.
As well as the fact that they have the land in the city, there are other considerations that ought to be taken into account by the House before we proceed to a Division. I say that the Bill will wreck an efficient unit of local government. It will deprive a large number of people of any real form of representation within their local area, and it will inflict a heavy financial loss upon each householder.
Let us see what the proposals would do to the Wortley rural area. If I can show that, in addition to the city having the land, an efficient local authority would be wrecked, then I think that I ought to get the decision of the House. The present population of Wortley is 43,000. If, unfortunately, the Bill is carried, the population would be reduced to 17,000. The rateable value would be reduced from £235,000 down to £139,000 and the product of a penny rate would be reduced from £938 to £557.
After this had been done, we would have the old story of the local rural authorities not being able to carry out their duties; and the reason why Wortley would not be able to carry out their duties is that they would be practically destroyed as a unit. We should have to disperse our present very efficient staffs, whose local patriotism is well known. We would have to wreck our local council, and at the end of the day Wortley rural district would become an easier prey again, either to the Sheffield City Council or to the West Riding.
I should have thought that one of the important things in local government was that councillors should be able to keep


close personal contact with their electors, but under the Bill this new area is to be added to Neepsend. I should say that the present Member of Parliament for Neepsend, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, is the perfect Member of Parliament, and that the councillors who now represent Neepsend on the Sheffield City Council are men with every desire to serve the electors, who do an immense amount of work and who are in every way excellent representatives of the people.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Is their political party a secret?

Mr. McGhee: No—they are all Labour members. That is why they maintain such close contact with their constituents. At present, however, these councillors in Neepsend represent 29,000 electors, but when this area is added to Neepsend they will [have to represent 44,000, which is almost as big as a Parliamentary constituency.

Mr. Mulley: Will my hon. Friend allow me to mention an important matter of fact, of which he, as a citizen of Sheffield, should be aware? In recent months there has been an agreement by both sides of the council for the revision of ward boundaries, to make an average of 13,000 for each ward, with three councillors. It has also been understood that such part of the Wortley rural district as comes in will have its own ward for its 13,000 electors.

Mr. McGhee: We have had yet another speech from my hon. Friend. We have heard of these promised redistributions. In Sheffield, we now have two local wards approaching the 30,000 number. Why was there no redistribution long ago? Why has it not been done? There can be no firm promise that there will be a redistribution. The decision does not lie with the city council. It lies with the Home Secretary, for his approval, and eventually the House might even reject it. The present position in Wortley is that we have 10 councillors representing the areas to be added to the Wortley Council. We have a county alderman and two county councillors, which is adequate representation; they are able to know the people and to know their desires and their needs. If these people are added to Neepsend Ward they will be completely swamped. As to the

promise to repair the damage that the Sheffield City Council is proposing to do, I say it would be far better not to do the damage at all.
As to the financial burden that the new added citizens of Sheffield will have to bear, let me say, first, that Sheffield has nothing to offer us by way of service. A beneficent Socialist Government have nationalised transport, gas and electricity and have promised to nationalise water in the near future. We get exactly the same service, so far as hospitals, medical and welfare services are concerned, that Sheffield can offer us. The only thing we are short of in one small part of this area is school accommodation for the children; and the shortage is not due to any neglect on our part but to the decision of the Minister of Education.

Mr. Lionel Heald: They are all wrong.

Brigadier Thorp: Six Ministers are wrong.

Mr. McGhee: What can Sheffield offer us? Will they be more effective in dust collection? That is about all they will have left to deal with. I can tell the House of two items under the control of the local authority over which we are far more efficient than Sheffield. Housing is one. In Wortley we have built since the war, on the average, one house for every 318 of our population. The best Sheffield can do is one for every 427. We are getting constant complaints, as the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), well knows. Our roads, for instance, in times of snow, are properly cleared. When one comes out of the Wortley or Chesterfield rural area into the City of Sheffield it is like coming into Switzerland after a series of avalanches, because the roads within the city are so bad. For all these great added services the present ratepayers are to be asked to pay on the average 2s. in the £ extra. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] All right, keep on contradicting.

Mr. Mulley: That is why we want it to go to Committee.

Mr. McGhee: I want to save the expense of going into Committee. The truth of the matter is that the rate for the unit to be added is, Bradfield 16s. 11d. and Ecclesfield 17s. 7d., so in


one area it is much worse than 2s., and in the other area it is a penny less than 2s.

Mr. Mulley: Will my hon. Friend also tell the House that the West Riding are putting their rate up by Is. 6d., which will have to be borne by these rural district tenants?

Mr. McGhee: No, we are so efficient in Wortley that we shall absorb that. Obviously, Sheffield City Council appear to think there is something in this case for increased rates because they propose now to put the model clause on differential rating into the Bill. That clause says that if the people added to Sheffield can find somebody to put their case before the Minister and to face the opposition of the Sheffield City Council, they may, for a few short months, get a differential rate.
I do not see these unfortunate people who will be added to the city being able to do it on their own account. because they will have to face the Sheffield town clerk. I want to say here that I do not believe there is another municipal official in the country who serves his council better than the present town clerk of Sheffield. He is unremitting in his services, he has sense, he is sincere, he is efficient. he is distinguished—and he is ruthless. We have been told by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, how they have consulted the interests affected. The only interests who were really consulted were the officials in the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, previously the Ministry of Health.
When the right hon. Gentleman intervenes, will he tell me how this decision was reached? Can I be told why the Sheffield City Council were allowed to send down their officials to consult with the officials of his Ministry and no effort was made by that Ministry to consult the other interests affected? Why could not the Ministry officials consult with the officials of the Wortley Council and give them some ideas? The whole thing has been wrapped in a cloud of mystery and the town clerk of Sheffield has come down disguised as Father Christmas so that nobody would know that he was intriguing with the officials of the Ministry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has he brought any' reindeer?"]

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Did the Wortley Council ask to see the Minister or did they not?

Mr. McGhee: If the Ministry are deciding the fate—and, obviously, they have done this—of the new line presented by Sheffield to us, surely the interests concerned could have been consulted by the Ministry. I tell the House that the town clerk of Sheffield has evidently mesmerised the officials in the Department of my right hon. Friend. The result is that if any body of electors go to that Ministry to seek a differential rate they will not stand a chance. The town clerk has one fault: he appears to accept bad political advice——

Mr. Taylor: Should they not accept advice at all?

Mr. McGhee: Yes, they should. I am glad to say that both in Wortley and Sheffield the policies decided by the council are not decided by the officials, as would happen in the area in which the hon. Gentleman resides. I hope the House noticed the contradiction in the two speeches in support of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park, told us that they held a meeting in the area affected. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), told us that the meeting was held within the city boundary.

Mr. Roberts: May I intervene to help the hon. Member? Two meetings were held: One inside the city and one inside the Wortley area.

Mr. McGhee: Where was the second held? This is news to me. I know that the one outside the boundary was held by some residents in the Wortley area who were opposing the Bill. The other one was held in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, in the Meynell Road School. With organising the Meynell Road School meeting, neither the Liberal Party—all three of them—nor the Tory Party, nor the Labour Party would have anything to do with it.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: There would not be anyone there then?

Mr. McGhee: But either the town clerk approached the Communist Party, or the Communist Party approached the


town clerk. I do not know; I am not prepared to say, but the great Meynell Road School meeting was organised by the Communist Party.

Mr. Mulley: That is very serious.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. McGhee: The leader of the Communist Party has written to me and, if Members are so anxious, I will tell them what he says. The chairman was Councillor Ballard. He is chairman of the General Purposes Committee.

Mr. Mulley: A Communist?

Mr. McGhee: Oh no, he is not a Communist, but when the meeting was being addressed by a speaker, some of the audience protested against the speech and the chairman got up and said, "But our friend now speaking is responsible for organising this meeting," and "our friend" was a Mr. Hartley, leader of the Communist Party in that part of the world. The net result of the meeting is that in their own council area at a meeting at a distance of eight or nine miles from some parts of the area they are proposing to take over was attended by 200 of their citizens out of 44,000 electors.

Mr. Mulley: Nonsense.

Mr. McGhee: I have just given the figures. Who said nonsense?

Mr. Crossman: I did not.

Mr. McGhee: Oh, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd). I forgive him, because he does not know anything about it.

Mr. John Hynd: My hon. Friend should accept that the hon. Member for Attercliffe did not make the interjection.

Mr. Mulley: I made the interjection, and the reason why I said "Nonsense" was that I have already had a petition signed by 127 people, with addresses in the area affected, and they were at the meeting.

Mr. McGhee: Yes, but the lady who collected the signatures is the secretary, or some official of the local Communist Party. If my hon. Friends did not know that it shows how little they know of their own area. As a result of this

Communist Party-Sheffield coalition—and the members of the Communist Party want to wreck local government anyway —in their own city they had 200 people at a meeting out of 44,000 electors and even then 17 of them voted against.
I say that we ought to wait for the proposals for the re-organisation of local government which are bound to come from the Government. If my right hon. Friend would take a little advice from me I believe that in this close Parliament, in which both sides are fairly equal, we might get a Council of State on the reorganisation of local government and get a decent scheme which would satisfy everyone. But what Sheffield is trying to do is to jump the gun on local government reform. I beg the House to tell Sheffield to use its own land, despite a possible drop in rateable values or difficulties which may be created with their great hereditary landlords. I ask the House not to damage an efficient unit of local government and a good neighbour, and I hope the House will reject the Bill.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence ofMr. SPEAKER from the remainder of the day's Sitting:

WhereuponColonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair asDEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

8.5 p.m.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage to indicate my view. This is a Private Bill. No party whips will be on. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be free to vote in the light of the degree of conviction they have obtained from the three speeches which have been delivered and speeches to be delivered later. I consider that there is a prima facie case for this extension. I commit myself to no details. It would be quite wrong, improper and premature to do so. I consider that having regard to Sheffield's existing housing estates in areas contiguous to the present proposed area and other areas on which it desires to build, this Bill should be given a Second Reading and all the details can then be discussed in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peni-stone (Mr. McGhee) was evidently very anxious to obtain my support by hook or by crook. I am not going to touch on any other references, some irrelevant, which he made to me and my Department, except on one point. The reason the Sheffield Corporation's officials have been in touch with the officials of my Department is that the hon. Members for Sheffield—of both parties—took the initiative in seeking an interview with me. I had a very happy meeting with them and if my hon. Friend had shown equal enterprise, I would have seen him.

Mr. McGhee: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to assure the House that there was no interview with the officials of the Ministry of Health or of his Department until he was approached by the hon. Members for Sheffield? Is he prepared to say that now?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly not. My hon. Friend is not improving his case by this type of question.

Mr. McGhee: Mr. McGhee rose——

Mr. Dalton: I am not giving way. It is a perfectly simple matter. Any hon. Member in this House interested in local government matters in his constituency is perfectly entitled to see the Minister responsible. The hon. Members for Sheffield—Labour and Conservative Members—came to see me and I was naturally pleased to see them. We had a meeting and they presented their case and I said to them very much what I am saying tonight, that I will not be led into detail. They showed me a map of Sheffield. It is one of my favourite cities and one of the best governed in the country. It has beautiful surroundings and I always enjoyed going there. Hon. Members from both sides of the House came to see me and no party politics entered the discussion. I said, in conclusion, that it would be very much better if an agreement could be reached between the local authorities concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), was there and he will agree that that is what I said.
I said that I thought there was a prima facie case on what they told me for some extension. That is still my view. My officials are always willing to consult with

the officials of any local authority at any time. I am the Minister and I take the decision, whatever is said in official discussion, and I am anxious that my officials should consult without any undue difficulty or suspicion being attached to their consultation, whether it comes from Wortley Rural District Council or Sheffield Corporation. I repeat that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone missed the bus in this case in so far as he did not take any steps to see me.
In my view there is a prima facie case for this extension. How far it should go I am not for a moment going to pronounce. All these matters can be considered when the Select Committee is set up if the House decides on a Second Reading tonight.

Captain Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question? If the extension is granted, will the Wortley Council still be a viable authority?

Mr. Dalton: That obviously is a matter to be argued before the Select Committee. I deliberately make no answer. It would be very improper for me to answer on this matter on which evidence can be deployed. My hon. Friend, and the officers of his Corporation, or any legal officer they hire will be able to present their case when the Select Committee is set up.
The other thing to which I wish to refer is the question of local government changes. I think it would be a mistake to hold up all proposed extensions because at some later stage some change in local government may take place. I have here what was said by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health on this subject. It has already been quoted, but he never took the view, and I do not and the Government do not, that there should be a complete standstill of alterations of local boundaries pending some larger reconstruction. My right hon. Friend said that he thought it reasonable that the extension of local boundaries at this stage should not be greater than could be reasonably justified on the urgent needs of authorities seeking the extension. They should not be excessive, but that there should be some extension was, he thought very often very reasonable.
I think my hon. Friend was perhaps not quite right in his belief that this Par-


liament, by reason of the narrow balance of parties, is best able to deal with major matters of local government brought before it. I believe the contrary, and on the cold view of political realities there seems no prospect of a major Measure of local government reform passing through this House of Commons in this Parliament. I suggest we take the proposed extensions as they come; judge each of them on its own merits, commit ourselves to no detail; but if aprima facie case is shown, let there be a Second Reading. I shall vote tonight for the Second Reading.

8.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the Minister gives wise counsel to the House that these matters can be discussed when the Bill is before the Select Committee which this House will set up to examine it. We cannot carry out all these examinations on the Floor of the House; and to avoid overloading the House with this type of discussion, machinery has been devised which before the war was operating to a very much greater extent than it has been able to do since.
Other matters have come before the House which I myself would desire should also have the consideration of a Select Committee. I would not complain that too many, but rather that too few of these Measures were going before a Select Committee. This local government system of ours is not a machine, but a garment to clothe a living body, in this case the living body of England. Unless adjustments are made to meet the rapid changes of population in our country, the garment will be unable to cover the body which it is intended to cover, and indeed to adorn.
I think the Minister is right when he says that in this narrow Parliament it is unlikely that a major Measure of local government reform will be introduced. Indeed the former Minister of Health said that a Minister introducing a Measure of that kind would have to seek a long period of exile abroad immediately, and that showed what he thought were the chances of such a Measure going through. That brings us back to the cold political realities. Either we freeze local government indefinitely or we make adjustments according to the tried practice of this House over many years. I say that the

machinery should have an opportunity of operating. Let the case be argued.
The only point of substance contained in the advice of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) was that this would cost money. Well, it is an Englishman's privilege to go to law if he feels like it, and if we freeze everything by saying nobody should go to law because it costs money, it would cause more injustice than we should remedy. Therefore, my counsel also would be that we should let this go to the Select Committee where all these issues which are of great importance can be discussed, and if it goes to a Division, I shall vote for it.
This is not only a non-party matter but a case for individual decision. Each Member of the House will decide for himself or herself. I am not committing any hon. Member on my own side, I am merely giving my own impression as one who has had charge of these matters in my time. I say that to arrest the adjustment of local government would be a bad step for this House to take, and therefore I would certainly vote for this Bill going to a Select Committee.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Jennings: I was rather shocked at the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) because a very large proportion of it had nothing to do with this Bill at all. Although I am not of the same political opinion as the majority of the members of the Sheffield Council, I think the criticism of them made by the hon. Member for Penistone was very unfair indeed. He not only criticised members of the Sheffield Council, but he also criticised members of his own Government; and a great deal of that criticism was quite irrelevant to the contents of this Bill.
There are one or two points he raised which I feel I should like to put in the right light. I have before me a letter from the Wortley Rural District Council dated 28th February, and I should like to read it on the point of whether any conference or consultations had taken place with that authority. The attitude of that authority has always been that they were opposing this Bill, and that no good purpose would be served by having any conference at all. This is the substance of the letter to the Sheffield Town Clerk:

"DEAR MR. HEYS:

Sheffield Extension Bill.

Thank you for your letter of the 26th, received today. The Council have now considered the blue line shown on the map which you left with me. They have decided to continue their opposition to the Bill. I do not think there is any more I can usefully add."

That has been the attitude of that Council from start to finish. How could the Town Clerk of Sheffield have any consultation with an authority which took that attitude?

Mr. McGhee: I would like to know if the hou. Member for Hall am (Mr. Jennings) knows when the Bill was presented? What I was protesting against was that there was no consultation before Sheffield had decided. It is no use having consultations after they have come to a decision. When was the Bill presented?

Mr. Jennings: As a matter of fact, tentative proposals were drawn up and it was upon those tentative proposals that consultations were sought with this local authority. The local authority, under no consideration, would enter into any discussions at all. So I think that the local authority can blame themselves if there has been no consultation up to the present time.

Mr. McGhee: Will the hon. Member please tell us whether he even knows when the Bill was presented?

Mr. Jennings: As to the date when the Bill was presented, I must tell the hon. Member for Penistone quite frankly that I do not know; but my instructions are from the people who have been trying to seek consultations. My information is that right from the very start this local authority took this dog-in-the-manger attitude, and said, "We are opposed to this Bill or any Bill you care to bring forward, and no useful purpose will be served." His point about consultation with the local authority falls to the ground.
Another argument was that Sheffield had a large area of land ready for building purposes. I have it on good authority from the local officials that there is no land in Sheffield available for house building. If land was available, I should see what I could do to ensure that it was used for that purpose.

Mr. McGhee: Why does the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for

Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) tell the people of Sheffield that, if private enterprise was allowed to build, they could build so many houses, when he says now that there is no land on which to build, except land owned by the city council, on which they could not build in any case?

Mr. Jennings: I shall not fall into the trap and bring this Bill within the sphere of party political strife. Every hon. Member must form his own opinion. The hon. Gentleman's speech was completely political, and it did not do his case any good. I do not propose to fall into the trap which he has set to make me argue this matter on a political basis. I should not support this Bill if I were not satisfied that we had no land available for building purposes within our boundary. We have open spaces and land which the local authority holds under bequests by people who wished it to be used for certain purposes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that we should get rid of the open spaces in Sheffield in order to build houses.
I appeal to all hon. Members to support this Bill, because in Sheffield there is a grim human problem. Many people live in very sad circumstances without houses. Every hon. Member who represents a large industrial city will know as well as I do of the painful circumstances in which thousands of people have to live. I maintain that we should be given land so that we can provide houses for these unfortunate people. I do not believe in taking too much agricultural land, but, in view of the distressing housing problem, and as I am assured that this land is not of first-class high production value, I feel justified in supporting the Bill.
I believe that the right attitude to adopt is to realise that there are many arguments which hon. Members and outside interests want to raise against this Bill. It is right and proper, however, that a Measure of this kind should be sent to a Committee so that the agricultural problem can be fully considered as well as the various questions of rating. I think that when the hon. Member for Penistone sees the result of consideration in Committee, he will find that the rating point will be non-existent.

Mr. McGhee: Fully met?

Mr. Jennings: I should not like to be unfair to the hon. Member. I cannot say that it will be fully met, but I think that it will be met to a large extent. In any case, it is up to the hon. Member to see that the matter is considered. I suggest that this House would be doing the wise thing in giving this Bill a Second Reading. Many of the major arguments can be given full consideration in Committee, and I ask all hon. Members to support the Motion.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: I am grateful for a chance to intervene, in spite of the fact that it means that somebody from the Midlands is coming into what appears to be a local dispute between hon. Members from Sheffield and the surrounding constituencies. It is perfectly, true, however, that everybody who represents a county borough has a vital interest in this Bill. I represent a county borough, and we in Coventry have a vital interest in the precedent which is being set today in the treatment of this Bill.
I must say—speaking for Coventry, where, sooner or later, we shall be concerned with the development and extension of our city boundaries—that it does not seem to me to be a very good precedent for a calm and objective discussion to have it carried out on Second Reading when it should be carried out in Committee. I think that for that reason, if for no other, everybody who really wants orderly Parliamentary control of this type of Bill should not welcome the type of discussion that we have had today.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to get away with that. I recall that in the last Parliament I moved the Second Reading of a county council Bill asking for housing powers, and it was the A.M.C. which organised the opposition of hon. Members in this House, which refused to give that Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that. I would equally oppose their behaviour on that occasion and their behaviour on this. It is wrong, whether it is the A.M.C. or anybody else. This type of detailed objection

should be done in Committee. It is far wiser for the House to let the Bill go through on Second Reading and have in Committee the type of objection which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) argued. The hon. Member could be there and able to argue his point. This is not the type of procedure which gives Sheffield, or any other place, a fair chance of having the subject discussed on its merits.
It does not seem to me that the details of this Bill and of the dispute between the rural district council which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone represents and those in Sheffield is a subject we should discuss here. Those things should be left for the Committee stage. That is the reason why, whether one represents a county or urban area, it is essential that we should give this Bill a Second Reading tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone said that there might be a reform of local government and that we should not allow Sheffield to jump the gun of that reform which can now be carried through because with the parties evenly balanced in the House we can behave as a Council of State. As I listened to my hon. Friend I wondered whether there was ever any chance of this House behaving as a Council of State. Vested interests are very strange things. I never thought I should hear levelled by a Socialist against Sheffield charges of snobocracy," f pushing housing away from the fine suburbs, of Sheffield people being in the power of dukes and at the same time being Nenni goats led away by Communist agitators.
I suggest there is no chance whatsoever of anything but either a coalition Government, during a war, or a Government with an overwhelmingly large majority, being able to carry through any drastic measure of local government reform. I fully agree with my Front Bench. What the Minister said is absolutely realistic. We all know what happens when we do anything sensible about changing local government. We saw it this evening. When something sensible was done an hon. Member normally sane became insane, and became wild in his allegations against people he normally looks upon as comrades. In ordinary circumstances they are his comrades,


but tonight they became conspirators, out to destroy the rural district council.
It is quite obvious that if we wait for reform, we shall freeze the local government boundaries in a state which will have an utterly disastrous effect upon housing areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone accuses Sheffield of keeping much more land than they should and, at the same time, does not give them credit for maintaining a green belt. That seems to me obviously a frivolous criticism. On the ground that there is no precedent for discussing these things on Second Reading and that the Bill should go to the Committee stage, where its merits can be discussed, I suggest that we give the Bill a Second Reading by a large majority.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. York: I agree with both points raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) but I do not think he was right on the question of Second Reading debate. So many interests are at stake that it is right that we should discuss some of those factors which affect some large or national interest. It is for that reason that I am intervening for a short while.
When I first heard of this Bill, I was very suspicious for the simple reason that I thought it meant another heavy loss to the food production areas of the country. We in the West Riding have suffered as much as and probably more than any other area of the country from the depredations of the various land grabbers, many of whom are doing a necessary job but nevertheless taking an increasing quantity of land from the food production areas of the country.
We in the West Riding have lost hundreds of acres of land for a long time to open-cast coalmining and various types of local authority work. All the time, and one might almost say in increasing quantities, we are losing land to the large cities for housing purposes. I, and the National Farmers' Union, who object to this Bill on the ground of the needs of agriculture and food production, fully realise that expanding cities must find accommodation for their population. The question I ask myself, and which I think the House should ask, is where this accommodation is to be found.
As I see it, there are in this case, at any rate, three alternatives; first of all, within the existing boundaries. We cannot, however, discuss that point here; it must be discussed in Committee. Secondly—and this is a much more important point—there is the land which is of low food production potentiality. It is on that point that I am most disturbed by this Bill. There is another alternative of building in height rather than spreading over a large area of ground, and here is a point which I believe we should discuss on Second Reading. It is essential in our present circumstances and, so far as we can see the future, in all future circumstances, that we should constrict the area of land used for housing by building higher so far as possible.
I believe the Government Departments themselves ought to be cogitating on this matter very deeply so as to ascertain what the possibilities are and whether it is possible to induce local authorities in these very large cities to take a more lenient view with regard to erecting high buildings. In Sheffield I believe there is a case for building more houses within the existing boundaries. I am even more convinced from what I have heard that it is possible to select land outside the existing boundaries which has much less food production value. I would instance Wharncliff Wood and Greenwood. I do not know the latter place, but I am informed that it is a similar area. I believe both should be considered as possible development areas for Sheffield.
I am very glad to hear that the demand on agricultural land is materially reduced. It helps a great deal to hear, for instance, that the total area has been reduced by some 2,500 acres. I am even more glad to hear that some 2,000 to 3,000 acres of good agricultural land is not going to be built upon. I hope the Committee will seriously examine whether it is necessary to include those 2,000 acres within the city boundaries. There is always the trouble that where an area of land is provided for in 1951 as agricultural land, the men who farm that land cannot tell at what future date some newly-constituted city council may say, "We cannot now allow this is to remain agricultural land and we shall build on it." We need a continuity of forward planning extending over 5, 10 or 20 years when we are considering the question of including agricul-


tural land within the boundaries of a town.
I am assured by hon. Members representing Sheffield constituencies that they will seriously consider during the Committee stage such alterations as I have suggested, so as to prevent building on good agricultural land, and I hope that will mean that further contractions in the boundaries of the proposed extension, including this 2,000 acres, will be agreed during the Committee stage. If that is so—and I have reason to believe it is so —I am prepared to let this Bill have a Second Reading.
But the essence of the argument, as I see it, is that we must not concentrate on these petty local quarrels but must consider the question from the wider aspect of the national need. So far as the agricultural aspect is concerned, here it is the national need which is important. I would put this to the House. People must be housed, but before they are housed they must be fed; and I should like to see city councils, and in particular the Sheffield City Council, recognise that in our lifetime Britain will never be free from the necessity to grow more food at home. By demanding more good agricultural land for building, city councils are reducing the ration of their own ratepayers.
I hope that in time that point will sink home not only with borough councils but also with Ministers and Government Departments. I want to see a "grow more food" complex in the system adopted by Government Departments, in that way not permitting local authorities to select the best agricultural land for housing, as they have often done in the past. If Sheffield accept that principle, I am prepared to support them in their efforts.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Henry White: We have listened to the views of Yorkshire for some time and, if one knew nothing about the Bill, one would think it concerned only the Sheffield City Council and the Wortley rural area. But this Bill also makes preparation to take in a portion of Derbyshire which is in my constituency.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), pleads that we should not have adopted this

procedure this evening I would remind him that the responsibility is not altogether upon those who are opposed to the Bill. Certain things were submitted to us on both sides of the House which created within our minds the feeling that we ought to oppose the Bill strongly, if not as vigorously as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee).
It is not my desire or intention to pursue the question of whether satisfactory consultations took place either before the Bill was produced or afterwards. I am not convinced that satisfactory consultations did take place. Nor am I here this evening to argue against the decision of Sheffield to build houses for its population, because if I lived in Sheffield I should be happy to have a house either in Green-hill, where they have already extended the boundary, or on the Trecheville and Gleadless sites, where they intend to extend the boundary.
Bearing in mind the map of Sheffield, I am still not convinced, by what has been said tonight, that the area available for housing is insufficient for the time being. I think further development should take place in the area represented by the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts). If one travels around that area, which was in my constituency and was a great gift to him, one finds that development could take place there on a greater scale than in the past.

Mr. P. Roberts: I believe that there are plans for building a large estate of some 2,000 houses in the northern area.

Mr. White: Yes. I would not dispute that for a moment, but I believe that the Sheffield City Council themselves have not taken any action with a view to building any large estate in that area.
However, I have not risen for the purpose or arguing about that. My chief point is that I believe that the boundaries that have been drawn in this Bill are wholly artificial and unsatisfactory as far as the Derbyshire side is concerned. They cut across the brow that leads from Gleadless across to Beighton parish, to the little village between Trecheville and Beighton parish. I believe that the line has been purposely drawn on that land so that it will bring within the city's bounds those lands that are the most easily and the most inexpensively developed.
I protest against the fact that it is proposed to take that course. If the Corporation want that portion, they ought to be whole-hearted in the affair and take the flooded lands in Beighton parish as well. My point is that they are taking the best part of this particular area, and that they are not taking the rough with the smooth. These cases, Greenhill and Trecheville and Hackenthorpe are self-contained communities, with their own churches and schools. In Trecheville and Gleadless we have two of the most up-to-date schools; and the rural district council have been progressive in providing facilities there.
I think this is an inappropriate time for this plan. I think we should wait for the Minister to deal with the function and structure of local government generally, although I do not want to go into that now. All I want to say now is that the proposed alteration of boundaries, as it affects the Derbyshire side, is such that not only do the Corporation take the best houses, the best schools, and the best sites in that particular area of Derbyshire, but along with those they will take third-class roads and put upon them a great and heavier traffic for which the county council will have to meet the bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone has made a lone protest with which I associate myself but, having said that, I ask that an opportunity should be given for these authorities to state their case by our sending the Bill to Committee upstairs.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: As this debate has proceeded, it has, I think, become abundantly plain that this dispute raises important local questions; but it raises no exceptional consideration that would justify the House in taking a course upon Second Reading different from the course which we normally take with Bills for boundary extensions, that is to say, sending the Bill to a Committee upstairs where the rival cases made by the various parties can be fully investigated with assistance which is not available to us in this House.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) made a formidable case. I think it would have been more formidable if it had been a little less political, but it was a formidable case. All the matters to which he referred, which are no doubt of

great importance in the districts concerned, are the common features of every boundary dispute in which I have ever been concerned. Each side claims that there has been inadequate consultation; each party produces letters which the other party says were in fact written by employees of the local authority on the other side; each party claims that crowded meetings have been held at which everybody voted in favour of their own proposals. That is the common character of disputes about boundary extensions.
All those matters, important as they are in their bearing upon these local questions, are really matters which are better determined in Committee upstairs. In a Second Reading debate, this House ought not to be invited to enter into the merits of the case. Let us send this Bill upstairs where all these things can be fully investigated; and let us refrain at this stage of the proceedings from expressing any opinion upon the merits, except the opinion that has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that aprima facie case for an extension has been made out.
I should like, if I may, to turn for a few moments to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that there was no prospect of a major measure of local government reform in the present Parliament; but I understand that Bills for the extension of the boundaries of county boroughs will be allowed to proceed so long as those who are claiming an extension can base their claim upon their needs to meet the housing requirements of their districts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the fact is that there is no prospect of a major reorganisation of local government in the present Parliament, why should the power of local authorities to readjust their boundaries, or indeed to readjust their functions, be restricted in the way he has indicated? If boundary extensions are needed for certain purposes, (I would say that equally a redistribution of functions is desirable before administrative systems become too firmly established.
Hon. Members may recall that last year I was responsible for moving the Second Reading of a Bill promoted by the borough in the constituency which I represent. The borough council were very anxious to become a county borough.


I think it was generally conceded on all sides of the House that judged by any normal standards they were fully entitled to county borough status. But on that occasion the then Minister of Health advised the House to reject the Bill upon the ground that we ought to wait until some general reorganisation of local government became possible. The right hon. Gentleman now seems to say that we may have to wait a long time. I put this to him. If an adjustment in one direction is necessary, it is equally desirable that adjustments should be made in other directions. I hope that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman will not follow the course of his predecessor and advise the House to reject all Bills which are promoted by local authorities desirous of altering their status.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he considered that no agreed Measure for dealing with the reorganisation of local government was possible in the present Parliament. I asked the right hon. Gentleman this question: what are the changes which he has in mind for which apparently a substantial Parliamentary majority will be necessary? I should have thought that there might have been a certain measure of agreement between both sides of the House about at least some aspects of local government reform. I am bound to say that the treatment which the local authorities have received in recent years, in the progressive withdrawal of major services from local government, does not encourage me to think that the measure of agreement between the two sides of the House is likely to be very substantial.
It is, I think, rather an alarming prospect that the proposals for the reorganisation of local government which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind are apparently so drastic and far-reaching that they can only be undertaken by a Government which has a substantial Parliamentary majority. That is a prospect which, I think, will not arouse any great sense of confidence in the local authorities. Indeed, I think that it will give rise in their minds to a feeling of apprehension. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he is in fact contemplating far-reaching changes of this character, some indication should be given to the local authorities of what is in store

for them. They should not merely be told, as he has told us tonight, that there is no prospect of any major Measure of reorganisation in the present Parliament.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. David Griffiths: I want to follow the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) and to say quite frankly that this piecemeal dealing with the position is detrimental and fatal to achieving the necessary reorganisation of local government., In that connection, I blame to some extent the Government of 1945–50 in accepting the previous Government's proposals for the appointment of Royal Commissions. In accepting the principle of a Royal Commission on the re-distribution of seats instead of on the re-distribution of boundaries the tail wagged the dog. Unfortunately, that is an accepted fact and we have to acknowledge it. Another grave mistake was in not having both Commissions working in co-operation with one another. I am satisfied that if that had been done a lot of these problems would have automatically solved themselves.
Turning to the Bill, I am dismayed and disappointed with the local government representatives of the Sheffield City Council. I will accept the challenge of the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings), but I do not want to become as acrimonious as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) in dealing with local government officials, including the town clerk of Sheffield and the clerk of Wortley rural district council. With a fair experience of local government, I say that it is a tragedy to have to bring this Measure to the Floor of the House when an agreement ought to have been reached without dragging in lawyers. Members of the House, who have to deal with their own problems and settle them in their own way, are being asked to decide this issue, when many of them do not know the area at all, do not know the internal or external workings, and do not know the outlay of the city and its environs, whereas a little common sense would settle the whole problem.
The argument of the promoters of the Bill is that the land is primarily for housing. We will accept that. We know that the housing of the people of this


country is paramount and No. I priority. With my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, I am perfectly satisfied that the Sheffield Corporation and the engineering staff have not taken the fullest advantage of the land within the confines of the city. The fact is, whether we like it or not, the councillors of that city are endeavouring to extend their sway over an area over which, ultimately, they will not be able to have proper and effective control. I could say the same thing about the West Riding County Council, but we are now dealing with the City of Sheffield and that city's extension Bill.
It has been said that there is no land available for housing inside the city. I am sure that no hon. Member in the House would debar the people from having a green belt, a recreation ground, an open space, and so on. That is what we fought the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut-Colonel Elliot) on, when he was Minister of Health. We wanted increased open spaces and playing fields, but, unfortunately, we more often got "nay" than "yea."
In Sheffield, we are told there is no land. The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. York) spoke about the necessity of growing more food as more important than the extending of the boundaries of the City of Sheffield. The argument about there being no land available in the city does not hold water, because there are 8,961½ acres of farm land inside Sheffield. Thus it is not incumbent upon the Corporation of Sheffield to go to Eccles-field for more land. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this question by people who do not know the area concerned. When it is said that only 2,000 acres are to be taken, that may be literally true, but it will be found that it does not work out anything like that. In all probability, if the Corporation succeed in this Bill, they will be taking better farm land from outside the city than they have within it.
I do not want to delay the House unduly, but it is a tragedy that local authorities cannot meet and settle their grievances from a commonsense point of view without wasting the time of hon. Members of the House. I have been asked by my rural district councils to oppose the Measure, but I do not know much about

it at all. Those who live in the vicinity ought to have been made acquainted with such things. It is all right to be briefed, but when one comes to talk and introduce a Measure—well, I have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) in his sincerity. When he says that if this extension is granted there may be Bills for extensions to other areas, the matter becomes a farcical comedy.
I want to express my profound regret about this matter, because I disagree with this extension of the city area. The city is spreading too far and getting too much. This is a definite indication of overspill, where a new town ought to be built. I do not accept, regardless of what my right hon. Friend says, that we must have a big majority for this Bill. I am not satisfied that this is a clear-cut matter. I would not say "clear-cut," because it is a rather involved problem. If we can get a majority at all, and if we have a firm conviction that we are on right lines, by all means let us bring in a general Measure. I would rather do that than deal with the matter piecemeal.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Gunter: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I notice that there is a consensus of view that a Select Committee should deal with this matter. I wish to speak as one of that body of people who will have to assume responsibility in this matter. My hon. Friend who has just spoken reveals great faith in human nature, when he talks about local authorities agreeing. If he sat upstairs for a few days and heard their learned counsel pleading on behalf of corporations, perhaps of the same political view, he would realise that local government seems to dominate the situation.
I would address a few words to the Minister. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut-Colonel Elliot), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, pleaded that this was a matter—and I agree with him—that should come before the Select Committee. He dealt with the fact that we use this machinery to a far greater degree than formerly. The circumstances under which the Private Bill Committee is now operating on extension Bills is somewhat different from what it has been before.


No Corporation has much hope of promoting a Bill except with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but negotiations go on for a very long time to determine the most urgent need for housing. If a local authority promotes a Bill to enable it to prove its case for the acquisition of 2,000 acres for urgent housing needs it gets little consolation from the Minister.
The Private Bills Committee is being asked to determine the urgency in housing; and it is a most bewildering problem. One extension Bill comes before us and it is pleaded that a 10-year programme constitutes urgency. In the case of another Bill, seven years may be argued. I do not argue that the Minister should define what is urgent—I suppose that is a matter which the Committee itself must face—but there appear to me to be conflicting principles in this determination of need.
There is some responsibility upon the Minister to tell the promoters of the Bill what is their actual need. I do not know whether I shall earn a reproof for mentioning this, but the position is that the Minister or his Department submits a memorandum to the Private Bills Committee, which does not take things very far. The Department accepts, in effect, the responsibility for determining what the urgency is, but does not tell the Committee in the memorandum why it has arrived at its decision. Another difficulty is that we are unable to call the representative of the Minister or his Department as a witness. I agree that the proper place to deal with that is in the Private Bills Committee.
I would urge upon the Minister that attention ought to be paid to the submission from his Department of memoranda fully setting out what is, in his opinion, the justification for the case which has, in effect, been imposed upon the local authorities by his Department. I believe that it is quite impossible for any local authority to introduce a Bill for an extension today unless it has the support of the Minister. If that be the case, the Minister has a responsibility to "come clean" with the Select Committee and tell them upon exactly what grounds he justifies his proposition.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I believe that the case for submitting the Bill to a Committee by giving it a Second Reading was conclusively put by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). That was practically the whole case that need have been put, and I think it was conclusive; but, as a number of other considerations have been raised, I should like to deal with some of the points, and I hope I shall not be considered to be trespassing upon what are in fact Committee matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) made a very vehement speech in which he showed that he was utterly opposed to the whole proposition in the Bill and to what he called cities getting their tentacles into the country areas. In doing so, he ably supported what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee). The position is that, on the one hand, we have representatives of one point of view, and that, on the other hand, there are those who have expressed themselves from the other point of view; and it has been crystal-clear, at least so far as the hon. Member for Rother Valley is concerned, that there could be no question at all of getting local agreement on this and that it must be settled in discussion in Committee in the House of Commons.
In regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Henry White), I very much appreciate the fact—so will all hon. Members from Sheffield—that he has at least taken the sensible course of recommending that the Bill be given a Second Reading so that the actual problems can be dealt with where they ought to be. The only comment I would make on what he said is that, in objecting to Sheffield's proposal, he suggested that we had been taking only the best parts of Derbyshire and that we ought to take the rest. We did endeavour in the West Riding area to take a wider part of the territory precisely for the purpose of embodying what is unsuitable land for any other purpose than for fitting in as part of a green belt alongside the new housing developments. We were persuaded to drop a great part of that unsuitable land in order to reduce the total acreage in the interests of the Department. That argument would apply equally in the south.
Now if I may come to what has been said by the hon. Member for Penistone, I think he was fully answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. His speech, in so far as it was not just an outright indictment of the Sheffield City Council and of the Government—I had thought he was a supporter of both— was a conclusive case for giving a Second Reading to the Bill. He raised a number of dubious and controversial points which we clearly cannot dispose of in a Second Reading debate, and which can only be satisfactorily disposed of in Committee. I will refer to one or two of those in passing, not to examine them fundamentally, but merely to show how impossible it is to deal satisfactorily with such matters in this fashion.
His main submission was that there is already sufficient land in the city of Sheffield to enable us to overcome all our building problems. Yet it has been emphasised over and over again that the main purpose of the Bill is to enable Sheffield to overcome an enormous housing problem which, even if the city were twice the size it is, I question whether we could overcome within a reasonable time.
The total housing figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), were these. We have a housing list of 29,000 people which is periodically checked and is a firm list of families who are not tenants of houses. It does not include all those tenants of houses who are overcrowded and anxious to obtain better accommodation. That is the basic minimum of the non-tenants living in parts of houses. In addition, there are 12,000 houses which were condemned in 1939, and an estimate of another 7,000 condemned in 1947—a total of about 50,000.
It is true that if the condemned houses were pulled down we could build new houses in their place. To that extent I give my hon. Friend the point that there is land in Sheffield on which a number of houses could be built. But there are 19,000 houses condemned, and it should be borne in mind that the rebuilding of these areas would not relieve but would intensify this problem, because in those slum areas houses were built at 50 to 100 per acre, whereas modern conceptions of housing provide for 10 to 12 houses per

acre. I would say to the hon. Member for Derbyshre, North-East, that the Sheffield City Council is seized of the importance of vertical building and the development of flats. Indeed, they will have no other outlet after they have had the maximum extension of the city boundaries, because of the pressing problem.
Over 50,000 houses are urgently needed, with a basic immediate minimum of over 29,000. Because of the rate of building that has gone on in Sheffield, we have had our allocation increased from 1,200 to 1,700 within the last two or three months. That gives a total building capacity of 3,000 for the next 18 months, and then the whole of the available land will have been exhausted. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone suggested that that was not the case. I should like the House to appreciate that the position in Sheffield is so serious that the city council have had to try to build on quite unsuitable patches of land here and there within the city, most of which is unsuitable because of the danger of subsidence and other things, and that a large number of these houses have already had to be reinforced at an extra cost of £90 per house. That is the desperate situation into which we have got. It is not an economical proposition, and is not a good proposition from any point of view.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that we are apparently taking 6,000 acres in order to get 2,000, but he knows the answer to that. He knows that the 2,000 acres is the minimum upon which we can build effectively within that particular acreage; that we are not particularly anxious to have the additional land but that it just happens according to the layout of the land, which is mountain, rock and quarry, that a large part of that acreage simply cannot be used, although it would be quite stupid to leave little circles of houses here and there without any connection or contact of any kind. It may be unfortunate from our point of view that this additional land has to be brought in, but it is no disadvantage to the rural council area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone made allegations about 2,000 odd acres of building land in Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) replied in great part to that in pointing out that most of


that land is valuable agricultural land, which the Minister of Agriculture and other interests will not permit to be used for housing. It is not the case that the land which is proposed to be taken in the south of Sheffield, outside the city boundaries, is good agricultural land, because we have purposely avoided the best agricultural areas and other places which could be used better for other purposes, in order to minimise the disturbance to agricultural and other activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone referred to areas at the west end of Sheffield—Dore, Gleadless, and so on—where we ought to be acquiring land and building the houses, but where, he said, we are not doing so because the city council would not be prepared to build council houses in these west end areas. That is not the fact, for there are council houses in most of these areas already. The reason why it is not possible, for the purpose of easing the housing problem in Sheffield, to use to any great advantage land at such points as Dore, is that it is too far distant from the east and centre of the city where the work is done. There are already considerable protests from the workers in the east and in the centre of Sheffield at the high cost of travelling to and from these very distant points.
The suggestion that the Sheffield City Council are afraid to take over by compulsory purchase the land of the hereditary landlords—the families of the Dukes of Norfolk and Fitzwilliam, etc.— also is completely incorrect. I am not proposing to go into these things in detail. I merely raise these counter-arguments to show the necessity of the whole thing being thoroughly examined in Committee. But my hon. Friend knows quite well that most of the land in Sheffield belonging to the two particular families to which he referred has already been taken over by the council. He is aware, for instance, that one of the largest estates in Sheffield is the Manor Estate, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). I hope that the House will realise the significance of the term "manor," because it got its title from the fact that the manor of one of these families was situated on that land. These are practically all Committee points, and I have only briefly answered the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone in order to emphasise this.
My hon. Friend said also that there would be no benefit whatever to the residents in the Wortley rural area by the proposed incorporation within Sheffield, because they are already getting better services than they would do within Sheffield. This is not the place, and I do not desire, to go into detail in comparing the respective services because, whatever may be said about our unfortunate town clerk in Sheffield, I have no desire to cast aspersions on either the character, the objectives, or the capacity of the chairman of the rural district council, of whom I know nothing. He probably is an excellent man. But there have been a number of letters I have received from residents in this area expressing their desire to be incorporated precisely because of the better services provided within the Sheffield area.
I will not go into the question of the meeting at Meynell Road School, except to say that that school was chosen because it was the most central point for the residents of that area. If there were not 40,000 residents there, that is because the schoolroom has not the capacity to hold them. It was crowded and extra chairs were brought in. The meeting was not organised by the Communist Party, but was publicly advertised by the city council on three occasions and was open to everyone and only 17 out of the total attending voted against incorporation
I think the question of waiting for local government reform has been adequately dealt with. If the Bill obtains a Second Reading tonight—and I think we may be fairly confident it will—and is referred to a Committee, it is probable that not before April, 1952, will it become operative. In the meantime the whole of the land inside and outside the city boundaries will have been developed, Sheffield's house building will have come to a stop and we shall have a most deplorable situation. We have to take this opportunity, when there is no early prospect of any local government reform, to get the Bill on to Committee so that all the points argued this evening—quite wrongly I think—may be thoroughly investigated and a decision taken.
There are many interests to be taken into account. This is not really a matter of Sheffieldversus the rest. There are agricultural interests to be considered and most important of all there is the housing


position to be considered. It should not be a question of town against country, or rural council, or county council. It is essentially a question of a responsible Committee of this House weighing up all these considerations and, in the interests of the nation at large, reaching the most sensible and practical conclusions in order that this tremendous question of housing and of agricultural development of the country can be given a satisfactory answer. I therefore hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill by an overwhelming majority.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

Question, "That Sub-head J.4.—(Purchase and Storage, &c, of Strategic Reserves) be reduced by £100,"put, and negatived.

It being half-past Nine o'Clock,The CHAIRMANproceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration.

Question
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,631,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951. for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including the cost of certain trading services; assistance and subsidies to certain industries; certain grants in aid; and other services.

put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put the Question,"That the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, be granted for the Services denned in those Supplementary Estimates."

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMEN TARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51.

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,168,357, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, namely:

Civil Estimates



Class I
£


6.
Privy Seal Office
50


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
7,500


10.
Government Actuary
10


14.
National Debt Office
10


23.
Silver
2,000,000


Class II


7.
Commonwealth Services
10


10.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
10


13.
Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)
100,000


Class III


3.
Police, England and Wales
10


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
109,750


8.
County Courts, etc.
10


15.
Prisons, Scotland
47,722


20.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
10


Class IV


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
2,000


6.
National Gallery
8,200


16.
National Library, Scotland
1,025


Class V


3.
Housing, England and Wales
10


5.
Registrar General's Office
5,000


9.
National Assistance Board
7,305,000


11.
Friendly Societies Registry
850


15.
National Health Service, Scotland
10


18.
Registrar General's Office, Scotland
2,100


Class VI


3.
Financial Assistance in Development Areas
150,000


4.
Export Credits
10


5.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
10


8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
10


16.
Ministry of Civil Aviation
10


24.
State Management Districts, Scotland
10


Class VII


3.
Public Buildings, Great Britain
10


4.
Public Buildings Overseas
90,000


9.
Stationery and Printing
245,000


Class VIII


4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
1,250,000


Class IX


6.
Foreign Office (German Section)
10


7.
Administration of certain African Territories
244,000

Revenue Departments




£


3.
Post Office
600,000




£12,168,357

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow;

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1951, the sum of £13,835,847 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1952, the sum of £1,471,421.100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. [Mr. Douglas Jay.]

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow;

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — IMPORTED CANNED FISH

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 1st March, 1951, entitled the Imported Canned Fish (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 345), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be annulled.
I offer no apology to the House for inviting hon. Members to consider this particular Statutory Instrument. It is an innocent little Order, but completely unintelligible, as is so often the case with these orders. But it does involve administrative decisions of great importance, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, and I think it very necessary that the exercise of these administrative functions by his Ministry should be examined by the House. This is the only opportunity and the only procedure whereby the House can obtain some information about the reasons for the policy which the Government are seeking to pursue.
Any hon. Member who has taken the trouble to look up the Order will see that it refers to two statutes and to a

large number of other orders. I confess at once that I myself have not gone the whole of the paper-chase course. I only looked——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): As the hon. and learned Member is learned in the law, perhaps he would refer to the large number of orders, to which this Order refers.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure but that that is an invitation to me indefinitely to protract the proceedings of the House. It is true that the first paragraph of this Order refers to two statutes and to a very considerable number of statutory orders. I propose to refer to the two orders referred to in footnote (d) which, I think, are the two material orders. Those two Statutory Instruments are Nos. 584 and 1341, of 1950. The Parliamentary Secretary has invited me to refer to all these orders. I have looked at No. 1341 and that appears to me to have nothing whatever to do with this amending Order.
The one which has something to do with this amending Order is No. 584, of 1950. Paragraph 2 of that Order says:
No person shall buy or sell any canned fish at a price exceeding the price applicable in accordance with the First and Second Schedules to this Order.
Paragraph 3 refers to sales to a person who is both wholesaler and retailer. It says:
For the purposes of this Order a sale to any person who carries on the business both as a wholesaler and as a retailer shall, if the buyer is buying for the purpose of his wholesale business, be deemed to be a sale to a wholesaler and if the buyer is buying for the purposes of his retail business, be deemed to be a sale to a retailer.
In spite of the invitation of the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think that it is necessary to refer to any other paragraphs in that order, but I will do so if he wishes. I think that those are the two relevant paragraphs though, of course, the First Schedule, Part 1, entry No. 5 is the one to which this amending Order particularly referred. The figures given in the First Schedule relate to a large number of commodities and a large variety of types of canned fish—in group I: salmon; and, in group 2: Fancy Chinook, Blueback, Red Spring and a number of other presumably edible forms of fish.
In Order No. 584, there is a reference to brisling. It gives the description of the container which is"—"; the number of containers per case—100; and then the maximum prices are laid down as follow: On a sale by first hand distributor to a wholesaler the price is fixed at 82s. 5½d., that is for each case of 100 cans I presume. The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. On a sale to a retailer the maximum price fixed is 86s. 5½d., and on a sale by retail the price is fixed at 1s. per container. That was the position under this Order of 1950 and it is that position which this present Order seeks to change as from 18th March.
In the new figures the number of containers per case remains constant. The description of containers remains constant, but the maximum prices are altered as follow: On a sale by first hand distributor to wholesaler, the price is reduced to 44s. 11½d. On a sale to a retailer the price is reduced from 86s. 5½d. to 48s. 11½d., and on a sale by retail the price is reduced per container from 1s. to 7½d. Those are the arithmetical facts with which the House has to deal on this new Order.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be so good as to inform the House what are the Government's reasons for these changes. I think that probably he will agree with me that the Government purchase of brisling is the most melancholy chapter of the whole history of Government trading in canned fish. I think he will agree that when I make that statement I am making a pretty large statement.
The hon. Gentleman may not remember the occasion on 12th May, 1950, when I gave to the Minister of Food a tin of Dutch brisling and a tin of Norwegian brisling. They were solemnly conveyed to him across the Floor of the House. I got no thanks for either of them and I received no communication from him with regard to either. I doubt whether he did me the courtesy of eating them. Had he done so he would have realised what I was seeking to prove to him, that it was doubtful whether one could describe the Dutch brisling as edible substance. It was certainly something which was an insult to British consumers for the Ministry of Food to seek

to foist upon them and it was very deficient when compared with the quality of the Norwegian product.
Although it is often gratifying to read one's own speeches, I will not read the whole of the speech I made to the House on 12th May. But in the course of it I said that if the Minister
… contrasts the difference in quality between them he will realise that some of the purchases made by his Department, without any expert advice at all, are a disgrace to any business community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 771.]
That is the view I then expressed, and I claim that that is the view which this Order confirms. That is a matter we will explore as the evening wears on.
The facts are not at all easy to ascertain. Again I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to correct me if I am wrong or misrepresent anything which he has revealed to the House from time to time. As I understand it, for the 1949–50 season the Government or the Ministry of Food bought 162 million cans of canned fish. Of those 110 million cans were sold to distributors, leaving a balance of 52 million cans. Of those, 9,400,000 were re-exported, leaving a balance unsold of 42,600,000. That was canned fish of all types. What is interesting to know is what proportion of those figures were canned brisling.
The only figure upon which any light has been vouchsafed in that connection is the figure relating to re-exports, because we have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary that of the 9,400,000 cans re-exported, 9,004,000 cans were brisling and were re-exported to Norway. What we want to know is whether the exclusion of the Norwegian brisling from this amending Order is due to that transaction. I have been told—again, I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to contradict me if I am wrong—that the Norwegians took back their brisling at the price which they had been paid for it. I am told that the reason for that is that they have always taken a great pride in their products and in the quality of their "Skipper" sardines, that they were disgusted to find that their products were being classified in this country with some of the other semi-edible commodities which the Ministry procured for the British consumer, and that they asked to have their goods back and, in fact, took them back at the price which they had been paid.
I want to know if that is so or not. Was there any loss to the taxpayer on that transaction? Who paid the delivery and transportation charges? Is it the purpose of this amending Order, excluding Norwegian brisling from price control, that their brisling should be able to come in by private import to this country and be sold at prices which interest all the parties concerned? If that is so, if those products are to come in in circumstances which can be described as fair competition, it is proper that we should understand that fact and be able to judge it upon that basis.
What we want to know is whether the purpose of exempting Norwegian brisling from this price control is so that private traders can, under the system which pertained before the war, import quantities of Norwegian brisling which consumers are prepared to pay. If that is the case, and if there are no strings to it, that is a matter which we shall be able to judge on its merits. It may be that there is a good deal to be said for it, but we want to know what is the policy which the Government are pursuing in this new departure of exempting Norwegian brisling from any form of price control. That is the first matter with which this Order deals.
The next matter, as described in the Explanatory Note, is that the Order reduces the maximum price of all other imported canned brisling. Why should the maximum price of all other imported canned brisling be reduced? What is the Ministry's reason for taking this action? As I said a few minutes ago, my information is that the balance of the 1949–50 imports unsold was 42,600,000 cans of canned fish. How much of that was brisling? I am told that in addition to that quantity described as unsold, there were also substantial numbers of these cans in the hands of the trade—in the hands either of first-hand importers or small retailers.
One would like to know the Ministry's estimate of that figure. Is it correct that the effect of this Order will be a 43½ per cent. cut in the price which the retailer can charge for the goods which he has bought? My mathematics are not very good but, working it out, it would seem that the cut from 1s. to 7½d. per can is something of the nature of the figure which I have mentioned.
What is to happen to the stocks which at present are in the hands of the trade? No doubt hon. Members opposite will regard the first-hand distributor as a wicked middle man of some sort, but, in fact, he distributes for the Minister, so I am told, at a fee or remuneration of 1s. 6d. a case, which again, if my mathematics are right, is about one-fifth of a penny per can. [An HON. MEMBER:"Too much."] An hon. Member says "Too much." That may or may not be true, but the distributor is now going to find that the price which he can charge for the commodity which he has purchased is reduced by 4½d. a can.
His margin of profit, even if it is too much—one-fifth of a penny per can— will not go very far towards helping him meet that loss. What arrangements do the Ministry intend to make to protect the trade in this connection? It seems to me that if the Ministry of Food are purveying these commodities to traders and then causing Parliament suddenly to cut by 43 per cent. the price which can be charged, then certain people in the trade will suffer severe hardship. We have seen the same story over reductions in Purchase Tax.
This is another aspect of the interference by Parliament in the trading affairs of the individual, and before we support this Order we should know quite clearly whether it is true, as I have said, that the trader and the distributor will be affected; if so, to what extent he will be affected; and whether the Ministry propose to take any steps to help him over this matter. It seems to me quite monstrous to sell a commodity of this sort to a middle man and then cut by 43 per cent. the price he may charge for it when he sells it. One may be quite wrong in the premises one is putting before the House, but one is entitled to some information. Are the facts I have put forward correct and, if not, what is the truth?
So much for the position of the trade and those people who may be in possession of stocks which they have been so foolish as to buy from the Ministry. But I have been told that the second object here is to attempt to clear the Minister's unsaleable stocks. Earlier, I mentioned the figure of 42 million cans of fish which are unsold out of the quantity which the Minister bought. I am told that those


stocks are quite unsaleable at the price of one shilling per can and that Government buying, in all its wisdom, has purchased great quantities of commodities which the British housewife, in her wisdom, is quite unprepared to buy at the price which the Minister is charging. I am told that in this unsaleable stock there are considerable quantities of Danish and Dutch brisling, and it was a tin of Dutch brisling which I invited the Minister to eat on 12th May last year.
So far as Denmark and Holland are concerned—and again I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to correct me if my figures are wrong—I am told that, of the 26 million cans imported in 1949–50—no fewer than 11 million cans are still unsold. Of those, four and a half million are Dutch brisling and six and a half million are Danish brisling. Before it passes this Order the House would like to know how much was paid for that Danish brisling, how much was paid for the Dutch brisling and how great will be the loss sustained as a result of reducing the price from one shilling to 7½d. per can. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stockpiling."] An hon. Member opposite says," stockpiling." But it is strange stockpiling of food to stockpile commodities which nobody will buy or, if they buy them—or even if they are given them, as was the Minister—which they are not prepared to eat.
I have no doubt that at the old price of one shilling a can the Minister was not overcharging—that one shilling was a fair charge. It would be interesting to know if it was not a fair charge, but, assuming that it was, what loss will the taxpayer suffer by reason of the price being reduced to 7½d. per can? If I am right in my figures, there are 11 million cans of this Danish and Dutch brisling unsold, and if there is to be a loss, as would appear, of 37s. 6d. per case it seems to me that the taxpayer will be involved in a loss of £200,000 on these 11 million unsold cans.
I think it is all the more important to try to elicit from the Minister how much is the loss which is wrapped up in this apparently simple little transaction. I suspect that a very substantial loss to the taxpayers is involved in this, and that this Order indicates another flagrant example of the cost of Government trading—that

it is a ramp among the other examples we have been having in the case of groundnuts, eggs, and all the rest of it; and that in this Order, which the Government would have passed without the House really questioning it, is wrapped up another loss amounting at least to £200,000. That seems to me to be a very Substantial figure to lose in importing barely edible foodstuffs from Denmark and Holland.
I move this Motion very much in an interrogatory manner. It is a purely administrative action of the Government. They are cutting, in this way, the price which can be charged for these commodities. One wants to know exactly what will be the consequences of that cut, exactly what are the reasons for that cut, what loss is involved to the taxpayers, and the consequences to the consumers. If the Minister tries to suggest that this is a Government plan for reducing the cost of living, that will be a proposition which will require very careful examination indeed; and I do not think that even the Parliamentary Secretary will have the effrontery to put forward the proposition that this Order is made on the grounds that it is an attempt to cut the cost of living. He knows quite well that it is nothing of the kind, but that it is cutting the loss on Government trading. Let us be told, quite frankly, how much is that loss, and what will be the consequences; and that may very much determine the course of action which we shall take on this Prayer later tonight.

9.57 p.m

Mr. Peter Roberts: I beg to second the Motion.
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, the moving of this Prayer should lead us to a report on the trading by the Government Department in this particular transaction. Government Departments make their reports—in the case of the Groundnut Scheme, or whatever it may be—so that the House can ask questions of the Minister concerned. In this case this is the only convenient way we have—and not a very convenient way at that, at this time of the day—of asking the Minister to give us a full report on how it is that his trading has got into what seems to be a mess. This matter may not be of the magnitude of the Groundnut Scheme; it may not have the


romance of the scheme for eggs from the Gambia; but we may well unearth a fish which smells as badly as those other administrative schemes did.
I want, first, to ask one question of the Parliamentary Secretary, because it seems to be a question of principle to which we should have an answer. He mentioned various orders to which this Order refers, and I would, therefore, first of all refer the hon. Gentleman to Order No. 584 of 1950. In the schedule to that Order we see the prices which can be charged by the retailer and the wholesaler, and they are in the neighbourhood of 82s. and 86s. each. When we come to this Order we find that the reduction, particularly for the wholesaler, is in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent., which is a further 50 per cent., whereas the final figure of the price per can, which falls from 1s. to 7½d., is, as my hon. and learned Friend said, something like 42 per cent.
Various remarks have been made about the distributive policy of His Majesty's Government who, from time to time, have asked for reports on the distributive trades, and we should like to have an idea of the principle upon which they themselves have drawn up these percentages. One would have thought in the normal course of events that if there was to be a percentage drop it should be made throughout the whole of the distributive trade. Why is an additional burden being imposed upon the wholesaler and the retailer? It seems to me that we should have an explanation about this principle upon which the Government work.
I now turn to the figures quoted by my hon. and learned Friend of the apparent Government loss. We have to consider the whole question of canned fish, because that is incorporated in this Order. It is suggested—and if this suggestion is wrong the Parliamentary Secretary should refute it as soon as possible—that over the whole range the loss may be as much as £2 million. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the sum of £200,000 for brislings. We cannot, of course, get the full figures until we have the total given us, but if that statement on the loss of £2 million is incorrect it is alarming to think that it should go unchallenged by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope he will give some attention to that in reply.
Then there is the question of the trader's loss on the stocks he holds in his shop. This is particularly interesting to those who have advocated, and are likely to advocate in the future, the reduction of Purchase Tax, because exactly the same problem will face the shopkeeper when he finds his stock-in-hand reduced. Before this debate concludes we ought to have some indication of the principle on which the Government are prepared to meet us. They can say that the shopkeeper can bear the loss.
We want to know whether that is their intention, because if it is I think it is an extremely hard one, and one which hon. Members on both sides should press for further information. Once this principle is accepted by the House passing this Order we shall have Chancellors of the Exchequer and Financial Secretaries coming to the House and saying, "The House approved this principle on brislings and we can now accept it for the wider principle of Purchase Tax." In raising this matter tonight, my hon. and learned friend should have the thanks of the House for putting a finger on something which may have very far-reaching consequences.
The next question, which particularly concerns my constituency in Sheffield, is that of tinplate. We are told that many millions of cans of this fish are being stored by His Majesty's Government, and that they are finding difficulty in selling these products. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that many canners in this country are asking for tinplate in order to can the produce of farms and of the sea. Are we to be told that under 'this Government planning scheme this precious tinplate has been allowed to be used for this type of product when there were obviously better products for which it could be used?
I admit that some of these things come from abroad, and we should ask not the Parliamentary Secretary but the Minister of Supply whether tinplate went from this country to Norway or Holland for this purpose. But some of it may well have been canned in this country, and, if so, I ask whether the Ministry of Food are being careful to see that this tinplate, which is so precious, is being properly used, because I think hon. Members on both sides will want to


hear from him that the tinplate is not being wasted.
My next question relates to the keeping of accounts. There has to be a difference between Norwegian brisling and other types of brisling. If we refer to the 1950 Order No. 584. article No. 5, which deals with the records, it states that every person who carries on an undertaking by way of trade or business——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles Mac Andrew): We are only allowed to discuss the amending Order.

Mr. Roberts: I would like your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The amending Order is amending the schedule set out in Order No. 584. That is the Imported Canned Fish (Maximum Prices) Order 1950. I feel that unless we can refer to the Order which this Order is amending, it is difficult to deal with this matter. The details which a shopkeeper has to perform when he is dealing with ordinary brisling and when he is dealing with Norwegian brisling are different under the Order. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear out what I am saying.
If, at present, a shopkeeper has Norwegian brisling and ordinary brisling, under the Order which is being amended he has to keep various accounts, and various duties are laid upon him under the original Order. By the amending Order, Norwegian brisling have been taken out of that category. The shopkeeper no longer has to conform with the original Order in keeping the various books which he had to keep hitherto.

Mr. F. Willey: This Order does two things. The short explanatory note explains what it does. It removes Norwegian brisling from price control, and alters the controlled price of other brisling. It does not do more than that.

Mr. Roberts: It removes Norwegian brisling from the original Order No. 584. Under that Order certain duties are placed upon the shopkeeper, and he is now told that he must perform one set of duties if he has ordinary brisling and other duties if he has Norwegian brisling.

Mr. Willey: The position with regard to brisling which remain controlled is the

same as it was before. No change is made by the amending Order, and therefore I say with respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that as the only change is a change of price, the only matter that we can discuss is that change of price.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker's Ruling is perfectly clear on the matter. On an amending Order no discussion is allowed of the Order amended.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Surely the Order which we are discussing frees canned Norwegian brisling from price control. That is explained in the explanatory note as the effect of this Order. Surely it is open to the hon. Member to discuss in all its aspects the freeing of Norwegian brisling from price control.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have made my point perfectly clear. I am not going to enter into a legal wrangle. On an amending Order no discussion is allowed of the Order amended.

Mr. Roberts: I will put my question on this Order. If a shopkeeper is selling Norwegian brisling, does he have to keep the records which he kept hitherto? That is the problem. The shopkeeper has to do certain things under a certain order. Norwegian brisling are now taken out of that Order, and one assumes he does not have to do the things which he did under the original Order.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary: Is it easy for the shopkeeper to distinguish a can of Norwegian brisling from a can of other brisling? If not, we put the shopkeeper in an extremely difficult position. He must keep meticulous records of one type of brisling— write down the names of the people to whom he sells it and keep records as to what he has done with it. For another kind of brisling which he could hand over the counter or keep under the counter he would have to keep no records. If by mistake he deals with ordinary brisling thinking it is Norwegian brisling, he is going to commit an offence. He can say, "I thought I was selling Norwegian brisling and I have not kept any accounts or records. I am sorry." But the inspector who comes along from the hon. Gentleman's Department says, "It was not Norwegian brisling; it was another kind of brisling, and, therefore, you will


be prosecuted." I am quite sure that no hon. Member in the House wants to put any shopkeeper in the difficulty of distinguishing between Norwegian brisling and other brisling.

Mr. Cannichael: Did the hon. Member say "Quisling"?

Captain Crookshank: Quisling was a Norwegian, too.

Mr. Roberts: I am keeping to the narrow limits of this problem, and the question I am putting is, is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the descriptive label on Norwegian brisling is sufficiently clear and obvious for the shopkeeper dealing with that kind of brisling to be able to say, "I can see that I need not keep records for this brisling, but for this other brisling I must keep records." That is a very pertinent question to ask.
The final question I have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is: Why does he except Norwegian brisling only from this particular Order? There are other types of brisling, including Dutch and Danish brisling. Why choose Norwegian brisling for the light of his countenance to shine upon? It seems to me quite extraordinary. These other fish come out of the same sea. It may be that the amount of loss is different. I do not know, but I feel that we should have definite answers and be able to see what is the loss. I hope the House will probe deeply into what obviously is another administrative muddle.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Willey.

Miss Irene Ward: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to speak at this early stage?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. If I choose to call the hon. Gentleman, he is entitled to speak.

10.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): It may help the House if I intervene at once, because I think there is enough confusion without any more confusion being added to it. The hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and

the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) had better make up their minds. The hon. and learned Member for Wirral said that Danish brisling was in no way comparable with Norwegian brisling. The hon. Member for Heeley said we could not tell the difference.

Mr. Roberts: I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether he could tell the difference.

Mr. Willey: He obviously does not know, because if he did, he would not ask me to tell the difference. The hon. and learned Member for Wirral said his mathematics were not very good. I accept that. Neither are his politics. I should have thought that his experience as a lawyer would have taught him to be rather cautious in this matter, and that if he asked interrogatories he should wait for the replies before he made any comments. However, in this case, he made the comments and then asked the questions. His comment was that this was a melancholy chapter, and that in the matter of canned fish all the Ministry of Food could show was a miserable story. But is it? These are the figures. In the financial year ending March, 1950, on sales of canned fish amounting to about £10 million the Ministry showed a profit of £820,000. I am going to deal with this thing in a moment. [Interruption.]

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: On a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Members below the Bar to join in debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear them.

Mr. Willey: Mr. Willey rose——

Mr. McAdden: On a point of order. In view of your Ruling that the debate must be restricted to what appears in the amended Order, is it in order to deal with canned fish generally?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Minister, I understand, is dealing with something which arose before I came into the Chair.

Mr. Willey: In case we might lose the thread of the argument by reason of all the points of order, let me repeat that in the financial year ending in March, 1950, on the sales of canned fish, totalling about £10 million, there was a profit of £820,000.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the Minister give the brisling figures?

Mr. Willey: I will give them. The hon. and learned Member allowed himself to be sufficiently incautious to hazard a guess. It is no use coming along on these occasions, praying and asking questions. The Opposition have every right to elicit this information by way of Questions but they come to pray to annul an Order. Through the mover of the Motion, they have expressed a point of view about the Order. Let them have the courage to divide and go into the Lobby to oppose a price decrease.
This is the position about brisling. It is not that we face a prospective loss of £200,000 but that if we carry this Order, enforce it, implement it, we shall have a modest profit on our dealings in brisling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Opposition have raised the matter. They wanted an explanation. They are getting it. It is no use their getting excited because they do not like the reply. They put down the Prayer so that I could give a reply. The position on canned fish therefore, is, broadly, that we made a substantial profit and on brisling, allowing for this price decrease, we shall make a modest profit. What do the Opposition want us to do? Make a large profit? They seemed to be rather excited when I revealed a substantial profit on canned fish generally. I should have thought they would be happy about it. To deal with some of the other questions——

Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the figure of the modest profit to which he has referred?

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member will remember that considerable concern was shown at one time about Algerian wine. The figures were eventually given when the stocks were disposed of. These figures will be given on that occasion. When I say that we shall have a modest profit, I say so on the basis of the Order against which the Opposition are praying. I am saying that if we dispose of our stocks at the price to which we have reduced the brisling, we shall make a modest profit. All we are concerned about tonight is whether we are taking a prudent step by way of the amending order. That is the basis of the surmise made by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral.

Major Tufton Beamish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willey: No, Sir. That is, in short, the position on the first major question which has arisen about the Order. Let us now consider the Order more broadly——

Miss Ward: We cannot.

Mr. Willey: I mean the amending Order and not the original Order. We have stocks of brisling of which we wish to dispose, and we wish to dispose of them in a way which will assist both the consumer and the trade. That is exactly what we are doing. We do it prudently in the first instance by ensuring that we shall retain a modest profit on the transaction. So, first of all, we get the question which has been raised about the Norwegian brisling. We have disposed of all our stocks of Norwegian brisling——

Miss Ward: How?

Mr. Willey: We have disposed of the stocks and I do not know what the hon. Lady wants to suggest. Let us get this quite clear. Do the Opposition wish us to continue the bulk purchase of Norwegian brisling? If not, they should welcome the Order because it is a consequence of the fact that we have disposed of our entire stocks of Norwegian brisling.

Colonel Stoddari-Scott: Back to Norway.

Mr. Willey: I will deal with the question of Norway. It is the point I had reached in my argument. We sold back to Norway some of the brisling which we bought from Norway. We sold back that brisling to Norway at a higher price than that at which we bought it. It was a very good deal indeed. The cases were bought at 71s. f.o.b. and were sold back to Norway at 82s. 6d. f.o.b. The difference was sufficient to cover the cost of freight, landing and warehouse charges, the duty and to allow us some profit. Norway was anxious to buy back the brisling even at this price because the Norwegians can sell in a market in which we could not sell owing to the conditions of sale imposed on the brislings when sold to us.
But if we are dealing with the question of profit and loss, again we are on the right side of the line. Let us see what we are doing. We are saying to the housewife that we are reducing the retail price


of brislings from 1s. to 7½. That is opposed by the Opposition. What do they want us to do? Do they want us to continue to sell them at Is? If they want us to do that, obviously they want to prejudice the housewife. But it is worse than that, because obviously they want to prejudice the trade, since the trade are anxious that we should dispose of our stocks at the earliest opportunity. They will probably be wanting to buy again in August—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not at this price."] I am talking about the import trade. I will deal with the traders. One must not imagine that all trade consists of retailers and wholesalers.

Mr. McAdden: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to put a question on Norwegian brislings? He said that he bought them at 71s. f.o.b. and sold them at 82s. 6d. Was that f.o.b. or was it not? If it was, what were the carriage charges involved on top of the 71s.?

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman can look at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow because I have dealt with all those matters.

Mr. McAdden: The hon. Gentleman has not.

Mr. Willey: Both prices were f.o.b., and I said when I gave them, that the increase in price was sufficient to cover the cost of freight, landing and warehouse charges, the duty and, over and above that, we were on the profit side. In moving this Prayer, the Opposition are opposing the reduction to the housewife from 1s. to 7½d. They are also endeavouring to prejudice the trade, because the trade are anxious that we should dispose of the stocks as quickly as we can, and so decontrol not only Norwegian brisling, as we have been able to do, but all brisling. We are trying to help them. The Opposition want to spike our guns and prejudice the trade.
Now think of the other side, the retail and wholesale trade. I suppose the Opposition would have been quite happy if we had altered our selling price to the wholesalers but not the retail price. We were not prepared to do that. I was asked a question about the margins. These are cash margins which remain unaltered. No one is prejudiced. The trade get the same cash margin unaltered by this Order. What we have tried to do, as any

hon. Member who had taken pains to consult anyone in the trade would know full well, is to meet the trade.

Miss Ward: Too late.

Mr. Willey: Of course, hon. Members opposite do not like it. As far as that side of the trade is concerned, we have not made any allocation to them for about the last four months, and there has been a sharp run-down in the supplies to the trade. I can give a few figures to illustrate this. [An HON. MEMBER: What about stocks?] Of course stocks depend upon supplies. If I give the supplies, the hon Member can form his estimate of the stocks. On 1st January, 1950, we supplied approximately 93,000 cases or, to put it more simply, 974 tons. On 18th June, 40 weeks ago, we supplied 816 tons; 32 weeks ago we supplied 133 tons; 16 weeks ago we supplied 70 tons. In other words there has been a sharp run-down.
This is permissive buying by the trade; they are not obliged to buy. They buy, taking their own forward view of the market. We have endeavoured to meet them to see that they should not be holding stocks. What we cannot do, if we are to meet the trade generally and run down our stocks, is to say that we cannot have a price reduction while any single retailer or wholesaler is holding stocks. That would prejudice the other people in the trade. What we have done is to try to be as reasonable and helpful as we can.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I am given to understand that the retail stocks are six million tins.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman opposite had better not hazard any more guesses. In short, the purport of this Order is to free Norwegian brisling from control and to reduce the price of other brisling from 1s. to 7½d. It is open to the hon. Gentlemen opposite to oppose the de-control of Norwegian brisling if they feel so inclined and to say to the housewives, in spite of the explanation I have given, that they ought to pay 1s., and not 7½d., for brisling.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Willey) started off on the wrong foot. He accused the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) of lacking


courage in not proposing to divide the House, when he must have recalled, or ought to have recalled, that my hon. and learned Friend made it clear at the beginning of his speech that the purpose of the debate was interrogatory. We want to get answers to certain questions. That is not at all an unreasonable line for the Opposition to take in this Parliament. Had we not asked a great many questions, for example, about the Groundnuts Scheme, would the House ever have known, until a long time afterwards, of the frightful muddle that took place? Had we not asked yesterday——

Mr. John Lewis: A point of order. The hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that the purpose of this Prayer is to elicit information from His Majesty's Government. I would ask your Ruling on this point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely this is a misuse of the procedure of this House. The correct method of eliciting information is by Question and answer, and a Prayer addressed to His Majesty should not be used for this purpose.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Stewart: I was explaining to the Minister why we are asking questions. We have to ask questions, because the experience of this House has been such that we are filled with suspicion about everything. The less satisfying, the less open the Minister is, the more suspicious we become. Had we not asked further questions yesterday about the Gambia egg scheme, we would never have heard the disturbing news we got. We must ask the hon. Gentleman questions no matter how polite and courteous he may be, and we must ask him more questions because of his answer. He very cleverly avoided giving us any of the information we really wanted.
What we want to know is this: What is the real reason for this new Order? Why does the hon. Gentleman come along with this surprising action of reducing the price so substantially? As consumers we are all very pleased that it should be reduced, but the hon. Gentleman must not think that we are all so simple as to accept that as the reason. We cannot help having the suspicion that the price is being reduced because the

stocks the Government hold are so large that, like other stocks of food they have bought, they might well be inclined to go bad through years of keeping. By pressure of circumstances they have had to reduce the price to persuade the trade to buy them.
He told us, when speaking of the distribution of brisling to the trade, that the amounts had fallen gradually. He explained that he meant the purchases of the trade: what the trade asked for. The trade is apparently asking him for less and less, which means that it has either too much on its shelves already, or, alternatively, cannot sell what it has. Therefore, for once the Minister, acting as a sound businessman, says "I must get rid of the stocks so I will lower the price." The House is entitled to know what are the stocks. He will have to tell us. What did he pay for the stocks? What are they worth now? He says he will make a modest profit: what is it? He must have made some estimate. We were told that the Government were going to plant two million acres of ground nuts [HON. MEMBERS: "Three million"], but they have only planted about one million. How can we believe hon. Gentlemen opposite?
What grounds has the hon. Gentleman for telling us that he is expecting to make a profit? Not that we disbelieve him, but we cannot accept a statement of that kind from the Government without proof. Where is the proof? What right has he to tell us he expects to make a profit? He did not produce one figure to prove it, and if there is no figure presented to the House it would be improper in view of our past experiences to accept the statement. I know that he will say, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies said yesterday, "When I made a statement about Gambia that was a statement given to me by the Overseas Development Corporation, and I am not responsible for it." The hon. Gentleman will say, "These are statements about making a modest profit which somebody else has given to me. I am not responsible."
Really, the Minister must be responsible. There is no intermediary. He is wholly responsible, and, therefore, we ought to have figures which can substantiate the statement that he is going to make a modest profit. When does the hon.


Gentleman expect to make this modest profit? In six months or six years? How soon will he reduce the stocks at this price? Are we to be faced with the possibility, and the likelihood, that the stocks he now holds are stocks likely to becoming into the shops in the next two years? Is that what he means? If I am wrong he will have to tell us. Those are the doubts we have on this side of the House and I suggest the hon. Gentleman has to answer them. I have asked what the stocks are that he holds. What annual sales does he expect during the next two years, so we may know precisely what we want?
I think he should tell us whether he has consulted the trade of the country before he made the Order. For example, has he consulted the fishing industry? Some of my hon. Friends represent the fishermen who catch fish which are competitive to this foreign imported fish. I am only asking, because I come from a political stable which does not leap at any kind of protection for the sake of protection. I was brought up in the belief that there should be as much international trade in and out of the country as is possible. I still believe it, with this condition, that one should not deliberately destroy one's own home trade. That is fundamental. Did the hon. Gentleman, therefore, consult the fishing industry in all its sections? Is he satisfied in making the change that he is not going to do injury to our fishermen who catch this particular kind of fish?
Lastly, may I put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary? It was put by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral, but the hon. Gentleman made no reference whatever to it—and that was another thing that made me suspicious. It is an odd thing that herring fishermen in Scotland—I raised the matter in the House a week or two ago—are having the greatest difficulty in getting the necessary tinplate——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of order to speak about herring or about Scottish fishermen, neither of which comes within the terms of the Order.

Mr. Stewart: I do not want to pursue that, but the Order deals with canned fish, and to can fish it is necessary to produce tinplate. This canned fish will compete with British canned fish, for which tinplate is required. I am only pointing out,

as part of the effect of the Order upon local fishermen, in this country and in Scotland, that they cannot get the tin to can their fish. It seems odd that we should be bringing in foreign tinned fish in greater quantities. These are pertinent questions of tremendous importance to the men engaged in the industry, and I feel that we need a much fuller reply from the Government than we have had.

Hon. Members: Divide!

10.42 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: May I, first, make it perfectly plain why I am intervening on this Prayer? It is because I happen to represent a constituency which has not only an important fishing port, but an important canning industry, which the Parliamentary Secretary visited a few days ago. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to invite me to accompany him. I regretted that I was unable to accept his very kind invitation, but we were grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming and seeing what a first-class canning factory we have in North Shields.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady cannot develop that point.

Miss Ward: I have made my point, so I will not pursue that subject.
I want to make it quite plain why I am intervening in this debate tonight. I am intervening in the interests of my fishermen, my canners, the people employed in my canning industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "' My canning industry'?"], In my canning industry, as I represent the constituency. They do me the honour of making their representations through me, and I am their spokesman in the House of Commons. I know that my constituents who are interested in this amending Order will want a very much fuller explanation from the hon. Gentleman than we have had this evening. That is why I rather regretted that the hon. Gentleman rose to speak at such a very early stage.
I want to follow with equal emphasis the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart). I have had some dealings, on behalf of my constituency, with the Minister of Food on the question of these imported brislings, Norwegian or otherwise, and I have been waiting for many months to make a speech. Parliamentary Questions are all very well, but one is very limited in time


on them, and since the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis), sitting behind the Parliamentary Secretary, and trying to prop up his failing spirits and keep up his courage, has risen to ask why we do not ask Questions on this subject, I must say for his benefit that I have asked a large number of Questions on the subject, but that they were very badly replied to by the Minister. I think that this Prayer is a heaven-sent opportunity for us to tell the Minister exactly what we think of the whole of this operation in our part of the world. I should like him to know what we think about imported Norwegian brisling.

Mr. F. Willey: The hon. Lady has referred to a visit which I very much enjoyed making to her constituency, but I think it should be made quite clear that, during that visit, no reference was made to imported brisling.

Miss Ward: On Tyneside we have a reputation for courtesy and good manners, and might I say to the hon. Gentleman that it would be highly embarrassing to him if he knew what the chairman of the home canning industry thought of his operations with regard to these Norwegian brisling. Because we are people who happen to be polite, and always welcome a visit from any Ministers because we have something to show them, the hon. Gentleman should not run away with the idea that imported brisling were not mentioned. He should not think that they are not in our minds, because the managing director of the canning industry which the Parliamentary Secretary visited is the chairman of the home canned fish industry and that gentleman is not very interested in regard to the operations of the Minister of Food in Norwegian and other imported brisling. But I do not want quite to demolish the hon. Gentleman, because I hope that he can do something for us in the future.
I want to put this specific point to him. Will he cast his mind back, not many months, and remember that the home canned fish industry was extremely angry at the amount of money spent on advertising imported foreign brisling? I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman whether this sale of imported foreign brisling, which, according to him, is now going to show a modest profit, is the

result of the money spent on advertising this fish to the detriment of our home canned brisling. That is what I want to know, and there are many other people who would like to have the answer. It is a very important matter. On this modest profit, does the Minister put the cost of advertising this imported canned fish, or is that carried on the Central Office of Information Vote? What about the money spent on that advertising campaign?

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: £10,000.

Miss Ward: I am reminded that it was £10,000. After we had made protests in the House, that campaign rather tailed off but, of course, the Minister had a great deal to say about the housewife. The housewife in my part of the country is interested in keeping her man in employment; she does not want unemployment because of imported canned fish. I very well remember drawing the attention of the Minister to the fact that the home canning industry was very angry about the whole of this operation. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think, has got a very pleasant personality when he does not lose his temper, and who is all right at play, made some really very unfortunate remarks about the trade at that time.
Although the Parliamentary Secretary says that he visited Tyneside he did not discuss the question of imported brislings with my people. Did the hon. Gentleman ever discuss this matter with the trade at all? If he has since discussed it with the trade I want to know why he did not discuss it with the trade at the time they wanted to discuss it with him. My opinion is that he only discussed it with the trade now because he thinks it is convenient to do so.
I quite appreciate that the hon. Gentleman dare not now go in for a fresh advertising campaign. Therefore he has this new idea of reducing the price, and that is the reason for the amending Order. He wants to reduce the price in the hope that he can clear the stocks. All this idea about reducing the price to the housewife is at the expense of the fishermen and our people who are employed in the home canning industry, and also at the expense of the taxpayer. All I can say is that I think he has perpetrated a fraud on the House of Commons and, as for getting


up and saying, "Why do you not divide," if the hon. Gentleman came up to my part of the world he would understand how the fishing industry is supporting us.
What I want the hon. Gentleman to tell us, quite clearly, is this. Is it a new move to reduce stocks because the advertising campaign failed to achieve the result that was desired by his Department? Has he got the courage to answer that question directly and now, because, if so, I will give way to him. Come on. I will now finish all that I have to say. I am delighted that my party put down the Prayer to this amending Order, to give us a very great opportunity of striking a blow for our own industry, and I am looking forward to the hon. Gentleman's further explanation.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I will not entertain the House with such fluency as my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward), but I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one very important question, if I may have his attention. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what stocks remain and how much tin was exported from this country to Norway at a time when our canners were so gravely short, because that enters very materially into this problem. The Parliamentary Secretary asked us to consult the retailers about their transactions. I have consulted the fishermen about this kind of transaction and it may interest the Parliamentary Secretary to hear of a letter I received yesterday from a shell fisherman in West Cornwall about just one of these transactions. He wrote:
I need hardly say that the fishermen of Coverack regard this as a heavy and bitter blow to their chance of being able to earn a living this year.
That shows what the fishermen think of this kind of transaction, and I speak for the fishermen of West Cornwall in my division; so there is no doubt about that.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us more information as to how the retailers are to be recompensed for the losses they will incur, because he has not told us the amount of stocks of these brisling? He has not indicated what the losses of these retailers will be, if and when these fish are sold. With these few remarks I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to

elaborate a little more than what he has already told us.

Hon. Members: Divide!

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I want to refer to my own correspondence in connection with what my hon. Friend has just said. I have here a letter from British Fish Canners, Ltd., in which they say that the Ministry's decision on this matter will give a very severe blow to the fish canners in this country and to the hundreds of inshore sild fishermen all round our coast. This company had the worst financial year on record last year, a turnover of £500,000 being reduced to £250,000 and it was almost impossible to sell British brisling and sild during the whole of the year 1950.
The Parliamentary Secretary showed himself as an extremely adroit debater in the reply which he gave, but there are a few points I would like to put to him. Why does he take so much pride in having resold to Norway almost the whole of the purchase which his Department had previously made? Are we really to understand that the Ministry of Food, under the present dispensation, is trying to set up as dealers in food? Was it with the intention of selling back to Norway at a profit many months afterwards that they originally entered into this contract? Their purpose, presumably, was to try to obtain canned fish from abroad for the benefit of the British market. In fact, it was such a bad purchase that, despite their advertising campaign, they were unable to dispose of it.
The fact that there were large stocks overhanging the market had a most depressing effect upon the whole of the trade of this country—the canning trade, the wholesale trade, and the retail trade. It is hardly worthy of the spokesman for the Ministry of Food to be preening himself upon having sold back these stocks to the country from which they were bought and to be repeating tonight the information that was given by his right hon. Friend on a previous occasion, that the selling price did, in fact, cover the costs.

Mr. F. Willey: . I was, of course, replying to the suggestion that we made a loss on this transaction.

Mr. Molson: I quite appreciate that, and I did pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity as a debater. What we are really considering this evening is the capacity of his right hon. Friend as an administrator and for the Parliamentary Secretary now to be able to produce an adroit reply is hardly any justification for the complete failure of his right hon. Friend in his policy.
I want to ask a few questions about the Dutch and Danish poor quality sprats which are now overhanging the market. May I have the hon. Gentleman's attention? After all, he is paid to justify the policy of his right hon. Friend. How does it come about that, if a modest profit is to be made by selling these tins of Dutch and Danish brisling at 7½d., previously his Department were proposing to sell them at 1s. 0d.? Is it not a fact that they had proved to have a most pernicious effect upon the ordinary trade in this country and that the Government are, if not cutting their losses, at any rate proposing to sell them at what they think is the maximum this inferior fish will fetch?
I want to read what was said by Mr. Banks, in an interview with the "Yorkshire Post," which is a most remarkable indictment of the policy of the Ministry of Food:
From January onwards last year sales became extremely difficult.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman's figures showed that each time some of the stocks were sold to the trade difficulty was found in disposing of such inferior stocks in the British market. It would have been a bit more frank if the hon. Gentleman had explained that the number being disposed of was diminished——

Mr. F. Willey: What happened was a rather surprising falling away in demand for canned fish. In fact, the private trade has suffered very substantial losses in the past 12 months.

Mr. Molson: It is another case like the one we heard this afternoon, where the Government claim that the private retailers are falling into the same errors and difficulties that they themselves have fallen into, and it appears that an official of the Ministry of Food said he was extremely concerned at the effect that heavy stocks were having on the brisling, sild, and sardine canners in this country.
When the Minister comes before the House with this Order it is only right and proper that the Opposition, especially those who represent the canning industry, should not allow the Government to get away with their present policy. It should be made perfectly plain that once more bulk purchasing by the Ministry of Food has completely failed of its intended purpose and that, having done harm to an indigenous industry, the Government are now having to dispose of their inferior purchases.

11.4 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: This has been a very unusual debate, particularly in view of the discussion—which I cannot anticipate—which is to take place tomorrow, when we intend to raise the question of the stockpiling of foods against an emergency. One would have thought that brislings, a form of canned fish of great nutritional value, might well have been one of the articles of food stocked.
I am interested to see how empty the House is getting on the benches opposite. I do not suppose there is any reason, except that they hope there will not be 40 Members on this side. The manoeuvre is useless. My hon. Friends are quite prepared to hear what I have to say on this important point.
I should have thought that canned fish, whether in oil or not, was one of the easiest of all foods to stock, yet we had it from the Minister during his speech that he was anxious to dispose of all the stock he could of this brisling, and he was patting the Government on the back because they had been so clever as to sell it back to the Norwegians at a higher price than they paid for it. That may be a slick commercial transaction—unlike many other transactions of the Government. There has been no such wonderful arrangement in relation to groundnuts or Gambian eggs. I am so much obliged to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) for staying. We have long been in the House together, and I am very flattered that he who succeeded me after an interval as Secretary for Mines should have thought my views on brisling worth listening to.

Mr. Grenfell: I have listened with interest; I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's views are very fishy.

Captain Crookshank: That is exactly what they should be on this subject. I feel very complimented, because the hon. Gentleman is merely a herald of things to come. Before long there will be only one hon. Member of the party opposite sitting here, and all those benches will be filled with supporters of a future Government. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), with impish delight, is making faces behind the Chair—and has now disappeared.
I was saying that it seems to me strange, when tomorrow's debate will reveal the Government's intention to stockpile—that they should be doing all they can now to get rid of this valuable foodstuff. They are delighted because they have sold it at a profit to the Norwegians, and also apparently because, having taken off control, they think they will be able to get rid of it in this country. It seems to be a very short-sighted policy.
It is very confusing not to know whether one is addressing an audience of one or two, and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Reid), who keeps flitting in with that gaiety for which he is so renowned, has rather taken me off the argument I was about to develop. It is strange that this foodstuff should be thought by the Government to be of no use for stockpiling. If the hon. Gentleman can explain that to me it will go a long way towards solving my difficulty whether or not to ask my hon. Friends to press this Motion to a division. The hon. Gentleman was saying that on the sale of brisling His Majesty's Government were making a modest profit.
On these trading accounts we, as representatives of the taxpayers—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Gower is still here because the Welsh are good taxpayers when they remember to pay their taxes—are happy if the Government will make modest profits. The trouble is that during the last three weeks we have not been talking about modest profits on Government account, but enormous losses —£36½ million on groundnuts, £850,000 on Gambian eggs. Here, we are anticipating what is a modest profit, and on that I think we can rejoice that at last the Ministry of Food have found something in the world on which they can make a modest profit. Oddly enough. Norwegian brisling is something which none of us would have suspected.
The hon. Gentleman did not tell us what was a modest profit. From our previous experiences of losses which the Government have tried to denigrate, a modest profit might not be much more than 4½d. It would have been much more helpful if the hon. Gentleman had told us what it was. For some reason or other, at this stage in his argument, he brought in Algerian wine. How he got that through, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in face of this Order, which we have to study with very great precision, I do not know. I see nothing about Algerian wine here. I see "Column 1—Description of Imported Canned Fish"; "Column 2—Description of container"; "Column 3—Number of containers per case"; "Column 4 —Maximum Prices"—and so on. I see that you have it in your hand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so it is unnecessary for me to go through it further.
I see nothing about Algerian wine. However, the hon. Gentleman said that somehow or other—and it was very much somehow or other—the Government had made a profit on Algerian wine and, therefore, by an argument which to me' at any rate was completely impossible to follow, there might be a modest profit on brisling if, he said, we sell at the right price. That, again, is a question of argument. What is the right price? Now I hope he is not going to take Algerian wine very far as a model, because we know what happened there. The Government made a frightful disaster of that transaction——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Order! I do not think we can go into the question of Algerian wine; certainly, not at this hour of the night.

Captain Crookshank: I quite agree, and that was why I said it was strange that I could not find anything about it in the Order. The only point I was making was that, whether or not the Government did make a profit on Algerian wine, they so handled that business that for years afterwards Algerian wine became the most unpopular drink in this country. I hope, therefore, that their handling of Norwegian brisling will not have the same result—that no one in this country will ever want to eat brisling again.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has just come in though we are not on the Church


Measure yet. I cannot do more than endorse what my hon. and learned Friend said, that we are filled with suspicion about everything the Government do. Of course we are; and if we had not been 13 months ago, after the General Election, we certainly are today. We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), who made such a brilliant speech from the point of view of her constituency on Tyneside, complaining that the hon. Gentleman, who has been up there, had never discussed this matter with those with whom he obviously should have discussed it— namely, those interested in fishing and fish canning in that part of the country. Why he did not discuss it with them. I do not know, and he has not told us. But the fact remains that a large amount of public money was spent in advertising this commodity without any success.
It would be a pity if, as a result of this very brief discussion—and I understand it is to be very brief; it has not gone on very long, and I gather that it is not likely to go on very much longer—it is not made clear that the people in this country have no objection at all against Norwegian brisling. They have nothing but the most pleasant and affectionate feelings towards the Norwegians, who were our Allies and suffered terribly during the war and who depend on the sale of their brisling for a great deal of their trade balance. Let no one in Norway think that we are denigrating them. We are arguing against the handling of the problem by the Ministry of Food. We have argued time and time again that it is Government handling of these trade questions which has brought difficulty and trouble to this country. It has not helped the Norwegians. I cannot think they would be pleased, however much the hon. Gentleman preens himself on his success in selling back to them at 82s. 6d. what he bought at 71s. I do not think it would be a matter on which the Norwegians would congratulate themselves particularly.
It shows once more how difficult it is internationally for the Government to go into these matters. We buy a great quantity of these goods, we do not sell them, we do not sell them even after an advertising campaign, and people begin to say "These are Norwegian things and

they are no good." Then we profit by the other side of the shortage. Not having enough for themselves, the Norwegians buy ours and either sell them or eat them. If they eat them, that is to their benefit. If they sell them, at enhanced prices, what a pyramid of misfortune is built up by the Government coming into this trade. The less the Government have to do with brisling, or anything else in the way of food, the better. But so long as they do have brislings in this country and have to stockpile against emergencies, I would ask the hon. Gentleman how it is they have overlooked the advantages which might accrue to us and to the nation, should an emergency occur—I see that I am addressing not only the hon. Member for Gower, but that the audience has been increased by the hon. Member for Islington, East—which is 100 per cent. increase.
I ask the spokesman for the Ministry of Food to reply to this question I formally put from here: Why is it he is so anxious to get rid at any price, as the result of this Order——

Mr. Butcher: On a point of order. Could you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, give instructions that proper order is to be kept outside the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, certainly. I think that that should be the duty of the Serjeant at Arms, or whoever is responsible.

Captain Crookshank: Awaiting the result of your instruction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was saying that I had been mystified by this debate, as had been the hon. Gentleman. So I formally ask him, or the Leader of the House, or whoever is in charge, how it is that at this time of apparent crisis in our food stocks—and I do not want to pretend for a moment to anticipate what might be said tomorrow—when we are discussing the possible expansion of our food stocks, that this Order should be brought before us.
The only object of this Order is to free a particular kind of brisling from price control so that more can be sold in this country and thus dispose of the stocks. If the Government had kept the price control and had passed the large amount they bought through the distributive chain into the housewife's larder


then, presumably, they would not have found it necessary to change the price level. That presupposes that as a result of this Order they hope to get rid of a great deal of Norwegian brisling which they have not sold to the Norwegians at a profit. If that is the purpose of this Order, and the Government want to do that and reduce the maximum price of certain kinds of imported brisling I ask why, in view of the known low stocks against an emergency and the value of canned brisling in an emergency, it is necessary to bring forward the Order?
Hon. Gentlemen will not deny that in times of emergency tinned fish, and especially brisling are one of the first things on which the people rely. Obviously, the troops may have to be fed, and indeed the civil population as well, on corned beef in that time of emergency, though until we know the result of Argentine negotiations we do not know whether there will be any for stockpiling or current consumption. A great quantity of this fish is now available in the country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite well that he is running very near the line and that on occasions he has been going over it. I hope he will not continue in that strain.

Captain Crookshank: I may be running near the line because it is a dangerous situation, but I thought I was on the right side of the argument. I think I am entitled to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that we want to know why it is that at this time—and it is clear from an earlier debate that we ought to be thinking of.stockpiling—it should be right to accept the proposal of the Government to get rid of stocks as a result of taking off price control or reducing the maximum prices of all kinds of canned fish. We ought to have that information before we pass this Order. Every hon. Gentleman ought to ask himself whether it is right to do that at the very moment when we ought to have in our minds—we can amplify this tomorrow—the desirability of stocking more food in this country against an emergency.
That really is the question, and not the question about what the prices are; not the question as to whether we are to make a modest profit over this transaction— although nobody has told us what a

"modest profit" is; not the question as to whether we made lis. 6d., or whatever it is, per case by sending the things back to the Norwegians—that is not the point. The point is whether we are justified in passing this Order tonight with regard to a large quantity of these canned fish, which we might put into storage but of which the Government appear to be anxious to get rid themselves.
The Leader of the House has now left the Chamber again, so I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been courteous enough to answer the questions, whether he will be good enough to reply to that one, because on his answer to that question depends our attitude with regard to the Order.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No question of order arises.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Leunox-Boyd: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Prayer have the right to reply?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have accepted the Closure, and that must conclude the matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, does the acceptance of the Closure prevent, or has the acceptance of the Closure ever hitherto prevented, an hon. Member from exercising his right to reply?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly.

Mr. POPPLEWELL andMr. BOWDEN were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes,Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 1st March, 1951, entitled the Imported Canned Fish (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 345), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be annulled,

put accordingly, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SAUSAGES (MEAT CONTENT)

11.29 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 26th February, 1951, entitled the Meat Products and Canned Meat (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 314), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be annulled.
This Order provides that milk powder shall be deemed to be meat in substance, and it will be my contention that that is a swindle on the public. The words in the Order, concerning pork and meat sausage, are as follow:
any milk powder used in the manufacture of pork sausages, pork sausage meat …shall be deemed to be equivalent to five-thirds of its own weight in meat for the purpose of assessing the meat content…
with the reservation
that the quantity of such milk powder…does not exceed 6 per cent. of the total weight of the product…
That is a most astonishing provision and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some explanation tonight of such an astonishing proposal. It really is remarkable that milk powder shall be deemed to be meat. There is a prescribed minimum meat content for sausages, and I think that the public have a right to rely upon that prescribed minimum not being grossly misleading. The prescribed minimum, I would remind the House, appears in an amending Order of last year—No. 1764, and there, the minimum meat content for pork sausages is to be 65 per cent., of which at least 80 per cent. shall consist of pork; and for beef sausages, the minimum meat content is to be 50 per cent of beef.
The position is a good deal worse than I have described it with reference to the addition of milk powder which is called meat, because this amending Order retains a measure of dilution which also appears in some previous Orders. That is that in the case of meat sausages, fats and vegetable oils shall be deemed to be meat for the purpose of assessing the meat content, providing that it does not exceed 25 per cent, of the prescribed minimum meat content. In the case of beef sausages, the minimum prescribed beef content is 50 per cent., and that is what the public would assume is the amount of meat; but when it is announced that 25 per cent.

of that is fats or vegetable residue, deemed to be meat, and a further 10 per cent. for milk powder, also deemed to be meat, then there can be very little meat left in the sausage. I am not over-stating my case when I say that this is a gross swindle upon the public.
The explanatory note to this Order is also entirely misleading, because it says:
The actual meat content may not be reduced in this way below 55 per cent. in the case of pork sausages and 40 per cent. in the case of beef sausages.
I think that is a ridiculous way to draft the Order, to say that milk powder shall be deemed to be meat and vegetable fat shall also be deemed to be meat. Would it not have been far better, in any case, instead of putting milk powder into sausages, to have given it to the pigs and produced some pork which would have enabled the Minister to produce a decent sausage? I really think that the Ministry of Food seems to have gone rather mad on this in an endeavour to conceal the very small amount of meat that is going into the sausage.

11.36 p.m.

Lieut-Commander Gorney Braithwaite: I beg to second the Motion which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), to whom, if I may say so, the whole House owes a debt of gratitude for his assiduity in probing this very curious Statutory Instrument. No. 314.
The sausage is a cherished British national institution; a homely article of diet. At one time—I regret to say about the time when the Home Secretary was a greatly respected regimental policeman, a function to which he has returned in the last 72 hours; and I am sure that he has commended himself to all those whom he has incarcerated in that capacity—the sausage was a thing of ridicule. Comedians in pantomime coupled with it that other honourable British institution, the mother-in-law.
It is a sad reflection to me and many of my hon. Friends to notice the retrogression in the quantity and reputation of the British sausage. The Parliamentary Secretary, who has already had to deal with one Prayer this evening, and who has endeared himself to the House during the time he has been in office, recalls to us that he succeeded another


Minister who made certain deleterious references to the agricultural industry, which all of us at the time regretted, and none more than the Prime Minister, who promptly removed him from office.
I would beg the Parliamentary Secretary to act, when he replies, on the advice given to the House and the Government only yesterday by one of our most respected colleagues, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who I am sorry is not in his place—at least, I cannot observe him—who uttered these resounding words:
Last week a number of us on these benches felt most humiliated because very serious allegations were made from the Opposition Front Bench and no attempt was made to reply to them. I am very concerned about this, not only from a national point of view but from the point of view of our Socialist Party. If we are to defend our Ministers in the country, if we are to defend the policy for which they are responsible, then debates, and especially serious allegations, should be replied to at the time, point by point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1363.]
The Parliamentary Secretary, who is still in the early stages of what we are confident will be a distinguished Parliamentary career, will, I hope, when the time comes for him to say a few words to us, bear that in mind. While I have one or two points to put to him, as did my hon. Friend, I understand that other of my hon. Friends are anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to expand on this important matter of the content of the British sausage. The Order, which I hold in my hand, says, inter alia, that
' Milk Powder' means milk, partly skimmed or skimmed milk, buttermilk, or whey …

Mr. Nabarro: Curds and whey.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Yes, the hon. Gentleman will perhaps complete the quotation when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It seems years since some of us read it and more years since some of us recited it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and congratulate him on his election a year ago and look forward to hearing from him again.
The Order continues:
…which has been concentrated to the form of powder or solid by the removal of its water.

That seems to be a most sinister suggestion. I am disturbed by the reference to the removal of water from milk. It savours far too much, to me, of the activities of the National Coal Board, and I think the House ought to know—certainly my hon. Friends desire to know—just what this milk content is to be. Perhaps I might have the hon. Gentleman's attention for a moment. Is this milk, I ask, to be tuberculin-tested? Would it be cows' milk at all? Is there not a possibility it might be goats' milk or even reindeer milk. In view of the existence of the Socialist Government, might it not have to be asses' milk?
I think the House should be reassured on this point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) who has great knowledge on this subject, will, I hope, intervene a little later, because I have a feeling he also is anxious about the exact meaning of this paragraph. He has the technical knowledge. We were all pleased to see him join us a year ago from Luton and his broadcast to the nation was of great value. The women who listened to his medical advice morning after morning on how to reduce their figures must now feel very much concerned about this Order. It is possible that not all hon. Members have a copy of the Order in their hands. Therefore, I shall read from it:
A person shall not by way of trade prepare or manufacture or sell or have in his possession for sale any description of specified food mentioned in column 1 of the First Schedule to this Order the meat content of which is less than the minimum meat content prescribed as respects that description in column 2 of the said Schedule.
Happily, there is a proviso, and it is the proviso to which I will draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary in particular:
…any milk powder used in the manufacture of pork sausages, pork sausage meat and pork slicing sausage…
It is a very well drafted paragraph. It is a distinct improvement on Bills nationalising various industries. Unfortunately, hon. Members have made me lose my place and perhaps I might read the paragraph again so that the whole of it may be at the disposal of hon. Members:
…any milk powder used in the manufacture of pork sausages, pork sausage meat and pork slicing sausage and beef sausages, beef sausage meat and beef slicing sausage shall be


deemed to be equivalent to 5 3 of its own weight…
Here, I am in some difficulty. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have the Order in your hand and you will see that it is so printed as to have what is described in France as a" double entendre." The words might mean 5s. 3d. It could be, but I think it is 5 / 3rds of the weight
…for the purpose of assessing the meat content of any of the said products, if the quantity of such milk powder so used does not exceed 6 per cent. of the total weight of the product, and
(ii) any fat of vegetable origin used in the manufacture of beef sausages, beef sausage meat, or beef slicing sausage shall be deemed to be meat for the purpose of assessing the meat content of any of those products, if the total quantity of such fat so used does not exceed 25 per cent. of the prescribed minimum meat content of the product.
It is somewhat comforting to make one's way through that mass of verbiage to paragraph (2), which contains these resounding and revealing words:
This Order may be cited as the Meat Products and Canned Meat (Amendment) Order, 1951; and shall come into operation on the 4th day of March, 1951.
For 10 days we have enjoyed the socialised, syndicalised sausage, and now the House has to make its way through this difficult, complicated language. But we are grateful for the explanatory note, although it says, in brackets,
This Note is not part of the Order, but is intended to indicate its general purport.
The House will mark that. Here is the general purport, which is no part of the Order.
This Order permits the manufacture and sale of pork sausages and beef sausages of less than the prescribed minimum meat content, where the deficiency in meat is compensated by the use of milk powder…
The Government have been very good in this explanatory note; it is made perfectly clear:
…in the proportion of 6 parts of milk powder to 10 parts of meat. The actual meat content may not be reduced in this way below 55 per cent. in the case of pork sausages and 40 per cent. in the case of beef sausages.
That brings me to the next point I desire to raise with the Minister. I am sorry that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is not here—he was here some time ago to deal with another Order—for his presence would have been of great value

to us. There was a written Question put on 5th March by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), who invariably shows a great pertinacity on these matters, about meat which had been destroyed as inedible by the Ministry of Food. It is possible the Minister has not got it in front of him. It is a tabulated statement, it is very valuable and is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th March, Vol. 485, c. 19.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: In the complete absence of any interest by the Government in this matter, which, after all, does concern the country, would my hon. and gallant Friend be so kind as to speak a little louder? They are not interested over there, but we are.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: My hon. Friend, whose advent in this House we were delighted to see, the distinguished son of a distinguished father, has made an intervention that I value. It was made with friendly intention. But I realise that it is the duty of hon. Members to address you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when we are called by the Chair, rather than our hon. Friends below the Gangway. Perhaps my hon. Friend would study the OFFICIAL REPORT in the morning. [Interruption.] These interruptions make it difficult for me to get on. May I also apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), whose voice I heard? He represents what used to be part of my old constituency, Holderness. He is the son of one who has occupied many high offices in the State—Minister of Education at one time, afterwards a Viceroy of India, later Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and now a most respected Mem-"ber of another place. How, beneficial very often is heredity in our political life.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman might keep a little closer to the Order which we are discussing.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: You will recognise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that heredity plays no small part in the production of sausages, though not apparently in Socialist sausages. They appear to be hybrid. When I was interrupted I was talking about the amount of meat and rabbits destroyed or used for other than human consumption. In the


first nine months of 1950—the right hon. Gentleman had not the complete figures at that time—it had reached serious proportions. His reply states:
Home killed 4,848 tons"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that this arises in connection with the production of sausages.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: If you will be good enough to allow me to develop my argument, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think you will see that it is extremely relevant. The housewives are looking to us to scrutinise this matter. Our constituents are more than disturbed about it. What I want to put to the Minister is this: when we have had such disappointments from the Ministry of Food, what guarantee have we that the meat is in fact pork and beef slice which form the ingredients of these sausages? The amount of meat destroyed or used for other than human consumption was worth, according to the Minister's reply, £845,000. Frozen was worth £34,200. canned £51,800.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how meat that has been destroyed can be concerned in this Order.

Mr. Molson: Clearly, it will be necessary to provide some explanation why sausages are, in future, to be diluted with milk, and it will be relevant to consider why there is this shortage of meat which can alone justify the dilution of sausages. If so much has been destroyed, that is surely one of the points which may be advanced by the Government as justification.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: I think that, as always, my hon. Friend has put the matter with such crystal clarity that I cannot possibly improve on it. He has put his finger on the weak spot in the sausage. Here we have a whole lot of meat considered unsuitable for selling in the ordinary way to housewives. What I want to ask the hon. Gentleman is whether he can assure the House that in no circumstances have any of these ingredients been inserted—and that they will not in future be inserted—in the constituents described as pork, beef slice, and so on.
My only object in rising was to second, as formally as possible, the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton

Coldfield. I well remember his coming into the House in 1935. He is a most valuable Member, and never more so than when he is probing these various Statutory Instruments which, in those happier days when our own party were in office, were not inflicted upon us. As they are inflicted upon us, we must not flag in our duty.
I am sorry to see the Government benches so sparsely occupied. I have a feeling that hon. Members opposite are losing their interest and assiduity in their Parliamentary duties. I think that is known. I say it more in sorrow than in anger. We are more than well remunerated by a generous nation for our duties here, and to see this entire lack of attention or attendance is to me lamentable.

11.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): I am sure the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) does not expect me to accept his invitation to reply, point by point, to the various matters he raised. I was surprised that the hon. Member did not take the occasion to refer to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in which he has always taken a great interest, and of which I was privileged once to be a member.
In this Order we have endeavoured to meet the views of the Select Committee on a previous Order. I was also surprised, and disappointed, that he should talk about a gross swindle upon the public, because what we are doing in this case, in reply to a request from the trade, is to restore pre-war trade practices. The hon. Baronet is now saying that the meat trade are swindlers. He is complaining of a gross swindle, when all we are doing is to allow the trade to follow their pre-war practice.

Sir J. Mellor: What I said was that in the previous amending Order the Ministry provided a minimum meat content which was described as so much in the case of pork sausages and so much in the case of beef sausages. On that the public are entitled to rely. In this Order it is provided that a certain proportion of that minimum meat content may be made up of milk powder and an even greater proportion of that minimum meat content may be made up of any fat of vegetable origin which may also be deemed to be


meat. That is what I say is a swindle, and I repeat it.

Mr. Willey: It is more than unfortunate, and it is a matter to which I shall have to call the attention of the trade and which we shall have to consider with the trade.

Sir J. Mellor: The trade did not make these Orders.

Mr. Willey: It is most unfortunate that remarks like that should be made. As the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) will remember, the question of vegetable fats was discussed in the last amending Order. I explained to the House then that this was a pre-war practice. I will explain in a moment, and I will give chapter and verse for it. that this is no more than the restoration of a pre-war practice.

Dr. Hill: Dr. Hill (Luton) rose——

Mr. Willey: I intend to give way, but I want to complete the point I am upon now, which is that if pre-war sausages containing milk powder were sold as beef sausages and pork sausages by the trade, then if it be a gross swindle by anyone, it was a gross swindle by the trade in the practice they followed before the war. That is the short point. I am not subscribing to this view at all. I take great exception to the description of this practice of the trade as a "gross swindle."

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the point was not that vegetable oil is used in sausages, as it has been for many years, but that in an Order which seeks to tell the public what is the percentage proportion of meat, vegetable oil is deemed to be meat for the purposes of that proportion.

Hon. Members: Swindle.

Mr. Willey: The difference between the position before the war and now is that by reading this Order, the public should learn exactly what are the constituents of a sausage. Before the war, although vegetable fat and milk powder constituted part of sausages, I doubt very much whether the public had any means of discovering that.
I want to give shortly the history of the introduction of this Order, because I think it is unfair to the trade to slander it in the way it has been slandered tonight.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the sausages which are now prescribed under this Order have the same meat content as sausages before the war?

Mr. Willey: I have answered the point, I now want to deal with the history of the Order. On 16th February, the Committee of the Sausage Manufacturers' Federation approached the Ministry and asked whether they could have permission to restore their pre-war practice—[Interruption.] This is a permissive and not a mandatory Order. Hon. Members should come to the House having read the Order.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There are no copies in the Vote Office. How do we know what it is all about?

Mr. Willey: The noble Lord is fully aware of it, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman beside him read practically the entire Order.

Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite rose——

Mr. Willey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is within the recollection of the House and it can easily be shown whether he read the Order or not. That is the only point he dealt with and that is the only point on which I shall give way to the hon. and gallant Member. On 16th February, the Committee of the Sausage Manufacturers' Federation took this up with the Minister, and in their letter they said:
The practice of including milk powder in meat products whilst not general in pre-war days was followed by a number of individual manufacturers, and the custom was, and is, quite common in the United States of America and on the Continent.
They went on to say that the resulting sausage was both palatable and nutritious. The position of the Ministry then was that the trade had made application for the restoration of a pre-war practice. This is information accessible to any hon. Member. In the "Meat Trades Journal" there is an article on the matter which says:
Considerable work was carried out at the Smithfield Institute in 1933–1934 regarding the use of milk powders in meat products. It was found, rather to our surprise, that pork sausages prepared with the addition of milk had better keeping qualities than those which were prepared without it. This was due to the fact that the slight increase in acidity appeared to retard the growth of organisms.


There is little doubt that the inclusion of milk powder in addition to the normal meat content does provide a smooth texture and a most palatable product. This is an article written after the introduction of this Order.

Sir J. Mellor: Sir J. Mellor rose——

Mr. Willey: That is the position. The trade asked us to restore the pre-war practice. We could not maintain that milk powder was in short supply. So far as milk is concerned, we can now say that although the demand is much greater than ever before, supply has matched that demand. What, then are we to do to the meat traders? Are we to say that because we have a silly foolish Opposition in the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"]—we should not discuss this matter reasonably; and, although we are convinced that nutritionally a case can be made out, and we are advised by the trade and from our own experience in this country before the war and from experience in the United States and the Continent that this is a palatable sausage, because for a political stunt we think the Opposition might pray against this Order without consulting the trade, we should not do what on the face of its appears reasonable. This is a matter which makes discussion with this trade increasingly difficult.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman said something about it being difficult to discuss the matter with the trade. What is the difficulty?

Hon. Members: Shortage of meat.

Mr. Willey: This is what makes it difficult. This is the second occasion on which I have replied to a Prayer against an Order which has been straightforwardly meeting the trade in a reasonable request, and each time the Opposition has prayed against the Order without consulting the trade concerned.

Mr. Molson: Mr. Molson rose——

Mr. Willey: If the Opposition are going to try to make political capital out of every such progressive step we are going to take in the relaxation of controls, we shall have to tell the trade that we will have to take greater care in disposing of these matters. One of the things which pleased the trade about this matter was the expeditious way in which it was handled.

Mr. Watkinson: Mr. Watkinson (Woking) rose——

Mr. Willey: We were complimented in getting the Order out with so little delay, and apart from a lot of irrelevancies and partisan matters which might prejudice our relations with the trade, nothing has been said tonight which would indicate the need of hon. Gentlemen opposite to raise the matter.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I was interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's cryptic description of his negotiations with the trade. It seemed to me that the whole basis of that description rested upon the fact that he could assure the House that this sausage had a normal meat content to which milk or curds or whey had been added. I should like to ask him what is a normal meat content? What does "normal" mean? I will willingly give way if he will answer the question. Perhaps he will tell the House what he means by normal, because it seems to me that, in the course of the last few months, we have had a very considerable variation.

Mr. Willey: Perhaps I may help the hon. Member. I explained that this was an article which appeared in the Meat Traders' Journal after the Order was made, so that "normal meat content" in this article means the present meat content as prescribed by the Order. [Interruption.]Really, this is not fair. This is a trade journal, and it is most unfair to create the impression that they are distorting the facts. This journal could have been available to any Member of the House, and in the article there are set out precisely the percentages prescribed by the Order.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Is it in the Library?

Mr. Nabarro: The Parliamentary Secretary is disingenuous in the extreme.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: On an point of order. It is extremely difficult to hear either the Minister or my hon. Friends owing to the constant interruptions among the Government Whips, who are supposed to be mutely inglorious.

Mr. Nabarro: As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by a Government Whip, who evidently has not been in the House long enough to learn a few


manners — [Interruption] — the Parliamentary Secretary is evidently extremely disingenuous in his explanation. He now says that it is the "present" meat content to which he refers. Does he mean the meat content before the making of this Statutory Instrument or after it? Does he mean a meat content based on 65 per cent. of pork, or on a 55 per cent. only, content of pork? [HON. MEMBERS: "He does not know. "] Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to answer? It would seem that he is unable to define what is meant by "present."
The point I am pursuing is that it is only a few months since my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) prayed against a Statutory Instrument which had the effect of increasing the meat content in a pork sausage from 55 to 65 per cent. On that occasion, my hon. Friend pointed out to the Minister of Food that the Order appeared to mean one of two things: either that the meat would be available to provide a higher meat content in the sausage while making available at the same time the same general quantity of sausages to all the people, or, alternatively, that fewer sausages would become available due to the higher pork content. Then the overall number of pork sausages available would steeply decline. In fact, the second has proved to be the case.
On 26th February—the date has some significance because it was the date that S.I. No. 314 was made—I asked the Minister of Food a Parliamentary Question about the sausage which has been vernacularised as a "Webb sausage." On that occasion, I asked the Minister
why this delectable morsel, vernacularised as a 'Webb's special,' has completely disappeared from the market?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1738.]
I asked the right hon. Gentleman why it was that nobody could buy this pork sausage. The Minister replied by telling me not to be silly and that the sausage could be bought anywhere. He went on to say that the content of his "Webb sausage" was 65 per cent. pork. That was on 26th February, yet on that very day he issued his Statutory Instrument reducing the pork content of the sausage to only 55 per cent. Which was right, the information in the reply to the Parliamentary Question, or the Statutory Instru-

ment? I suggest that there has not been a genuine error in this case by the Ministry of Food, but a deliberate attempt to mislead the House and the country. One of these two statements must have been correct.
It appears in the light of the Statutory Instrument that it has always been the intention of the Minister of Food to reduce the meat content in these sausages, and substitute milk powder, whey, or some other deleterious matter, the exact: dietetic value of which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) will no doubt comment upon in a short time. This matter reveals a serious artifice and, if not that, the gravest dishonesty on the part of the Minister of Food.
The housewife in Britain is finding the greatest difficulty in providing a staple diet for her family. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food said recently when questions were being asked, "Why drag meat into everything?". But the average housewife is getting eightpenny-worth of poor meat and two stale eggs a week, and now she is to be denied sausages. The miserable pittance of those sausages which will be available, is such a wretched quality as to be almost inedible. The meat content is reduced to such a low figure that there is no longer any nutritional value.
I say that my hon. Friends are performing an important public duty in praying against this Order. The nation is underfed, and here we have a further Order which represents nothing but a further slide down the slippery slope to Socialist starvation.

12.17 a.m.

Mr, Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary, in purporting to reply to the case made by my hon. Friends, introduced the startling new constitutional doctrine of chiding the hon. Baronet who introduced the Motion for moving it without consultation with the trade. It is surely a remarkable thing for a Minister of the Crown, or his deputy, to come to the Box and suggest that hon. Members are wrong in exercising their right to move to annul delegated legislation without prior consultation with outside interests. I have often believed that the Socialist Party was so tied up with vested interests in this country that it could not see straight


on any important national issue, but there are other hon. Members in this House who take a different view of their Parliamentary duties; and so far as we on this side are concerned, we hold ourselves free to carry out those duties as we think right and proper without let or hindrance from any vested interest operating outside this House.
Hon. Members, and the public, should remember, as my hon. Friend has just reminded us, that the effect of this Order is to reduce still further the amount of meat available to feed the British people. It reduces the amount of meat they can get for their money, and, whatever may be the views of hon. Members who are not performing their duties on the benches opposite, the people of this country feel pretty strongly about that; and people outside this House ought to know that, when these matters are being discussed, only half a dozen hon. Members appear on the benches opposite—of whom half would appear to be Whips, judging from their expressions of lugubrious ineptitude. I hope that the constituents of hon. Members who should be in their places opposite, but are not, will know that fact and that when a matter of great importance to the nation was being discussed, most Socialist Members showed their concern by absenting themselves.
The Parliamentary Secretary, with less than his usual affability, discussed this matter this evening on the basis, among other things, that this was done as a result of a request from the trade; I think that is what he said. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if he and his Ministry had made adequate arrangements to give adequate quantities of quality meat to the trade, the manufacturers would have wished to use this substitute? Is that his suggestion? If the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to tell the House that he is prepared to make available to the trade meat in lieu of the milk powder and vegetable oils now to be substituted in the sausage, that will put a different complexion on the matter. It is a little misleading, if not ingenuous, for the Parliamentary Secretary to say this is done at the request of the trade, when he knows perfectly well that any such Order is put forward only because of the failure of his own Ministry, with its monopoly buying, to provide the trade with the meat which the trade would rather put

into the sausage and which the consumer would rather have in it to eat.
I think the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), whose moderation of language I have often deplored in the past, was quite right when he said this was a swindle, and a swindle which is the responsibility not of the trade but of the Minister whose signature is on this Order. Let me ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the matter in this way. The effect, as he knows, of this Order is to authorise a reduction of the amount of meat content in the sausage. That is its purpose, but it is done in a most ingenious way by leaving the prescribed minimum meat content as previously described—leaving, that is, the content, on the face of it, the same amount of meat in the sausage—but using an ingenious legal trick to treat as meat stuff which is not meat at all. If the thing were done honestly, the Parliamentary Secretary would come forward and would reduce the prescribed quantity of meat in the sausage.

Mr. Willey: I did make the point before that this is permissive. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in error about that or is going on to develop his point; but this is purely permissive. The definition, such as he has referred to, would not be permissive at all. It would prescribe a new meat content.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, I fully appreciate that the Order is permissive, and if I may say so, I am nearly as capable of reading the Order as the Parliamentary Secretary; but does he not appreciate that, with the restriction of supplies, for which he is responsible, while in theory provisions of this sort may be permissive, it is the form of permission which is so often economically obligatory upon the trade to accept? Does he not realise that when his Ministry takes upon itself the responsibility of making an Order of this sort, it cannot shilly-shally away from it by saying it is the fault of other people, who are permitted to do this? It is exactly the attitude of the Government which, having enabled the Durham County Council to impose a closed shop by repealing the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, say it is only permissive, and wish they had not done it.
Let me follow up the argument. The prescribed meat content remains. The


definition of meat is altered by the inclusion in this definition of stuff that is not meat. I think the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, if I may say so again, was absolutely right when he said that was a swindle. Let me put this to the Parliamentary Secretary. The ordinary member of the public does not have the capacity which the Parliamentary Secretary has, nor the technical advisers, in construing these Orders. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary, with all his advisers, very often fails to construe them accurately, and so do his advisers. The ordinary member of the public sees in the principal meat Order the prescribed meat content, but unless somebody draws his attention to this amending Order, he will assume he is getting that percentage of meat.
It is being completely unreal and living in an unreal world to believe the ordinary housewife goes shopping and, with a bag over her arms, closely studies Statutory Instrument, No. 314. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think he is living in this somewhat unreal, but no doubt wholly Socialist, world? I see the Whip has woken up. I hope that now he will be able to maintain rather more silence than he was able to maintain when he was asleep. If the Parliamentary Secretary were desirous properly to authorise —and I appreciate the permissive quality of the Order—reducing the permitted content of meat in sausages, the proper thing to do would be to reduce it directly and openly by authorising the reduced meat content and not by calling stuff meat that has nothing whatever to do with meat.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary another question; is he satisfied that it is an honest thing to call something meat which is not meat, and then to say that it represents not only its own weight but a great deal more—five-thirds? After all, anyone who put meat into a sausage with such a complete disregard for its contents as to claim that its weight was five-thirds of its contents would be hauled by the Ministry's "Snoopers" into a police-court without delay. What he is doing is not only calling stuff meat that is not meat, but calling it more meat than it would be if it were meat. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that statement is lucidity itself

compared with the phraseology he himself uses in his own Order.
There is another aspect of this matter. One of the articles to be put into the sausages is milk powder. Is there, will the hon. Gentleman tell us, such a surplus of milk powder for its more normal use that it has to be disposed of in this way? Because if there is—I shall be interested to see if he indicates whether there is or not—it is very curious indeed that at the very moment when milk powder is so surplus as to be treated as' meat, his right hon. Friend is reducing the cheese ration by 33⅓ per cent. It cannot be the case that milk is now available in such large quantities as to justify its use for other than its normal purpose, for at the same time the cheese ration is to be reduced—unless, as has been so often the case, there is mismanagement at the Ministry of Food, and somebody in the Ministry has not yet appreciated the simple fact of nature that cheese is made from milk.
There seem to be two overwhelming objections to this Order. First of all, however camouflaged it is and however much it may have been attempted to delude the public about it, this does amount to a still further reduction in the meat available to the British public. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny it. It is a further cut to be linked up with all the other cuts in meat and other foodstuffs which the disastrous administration of his right hon. Friend has imposed on the British people. It is worse than that because, whereas these other cuts have been more or less honestly admitted, though their timing has sometimes not been unconnected with electoral events, this one is done in such a way, whether designedly or not, as to be calculated to delude the British public as to what is being done.
Therefore, I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that this Order is not only a poor and unfortunate thing; it is not only a further blow to the dietary of the British people; but it is a blow delivered in a shamefaced, concealed manner in the hope that the British public will not realise what the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister are doing to them. This debate will have done one thing if it has prevented the Ministry of Food from imposing this further cut without the knowledge of the British people. The British


people will know what the Ministry of Food has done, and when the chance comes for them to express their feelings about it at the polls, they will do so in no uncertain manner.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I did not intend to intervene in this debate at this late hour, but one thing the Parliamentary Secretary said surprised me very much. He appeared to concentrate the whole of his remarks on the question of the trade. I should have thought he had some responsibility to the public, and I would remind him of one thing—that there is now a legal obligation on most makers of foodstuffs to put on the tin or jar the exact content. Is the Parliamentary Secretary proposing to have a label placed on every sausage saying that the milk content is X? That possibly seems absurd; but if he is not proposing to do that, he is, in effect, deluding and deceiving the public. So far as I can see, the Parliamentary Secretary is not interested in the public in the slightest degree; he is interested only in long arrangements with the trade and in pacifying the trade.

Mr. F. Willey: The hon. Gentleman was perhaps not attentive when I was dealing with this point. I did say that we were satisfied on nutritional grounds. The protein content' of the sausage with milk powder is higher than the sausage without the milk powder. Again, we satisfied ourselves it was palatable. Again, I pointed out that this is a type of sausage consumed in some quantity on the Continent, in the United States, and in this country before the war.

Mr. Watkinson: I am subject to correction, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary justified those remarks by reading an article in a trade paper. In any case, perhaps he will tell us whether the sausages in France and America have a meat content of 40 per cent.

Mr. Willey: That is not the point which is being discussed. We are discussing the milk powder element in the sausage. So far as the nutritional aspect goes, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) is very interested, on the proportion prescribed the sausage with the milk powder is of slightly higher protein content than the sausage without the milk powder.

Mr. Watkinson: Whatever the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) may say later on, I am not prepared to accept that. It does not alter in the slightest degree the reason for which I rose—to make the point that the Parliamentary Secretary has not refuted. The party on this side of the House has done a very great service to the public in raising this matter, because they have shown that there are no constituents going into the sausages—[Interruption.] I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton that the sausages are not going into the constituents. Perhaps there is something in that.
There is an obligation on nearly every manufacturer of foodstuffs to state quite plainly, under legal penalties, the content of his particular product. Whether the palatability is increased or not, the Parliamentary Secretary only tried to justify the change by claiming that anyone could read Order 314 to find out what goes into the sausages. As the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, it is not likely that the housewife, burdened with six years of Socialist mismanagement, will take Statutory Instruments with her when shopping.
I think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has grounds for his remarks that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministry have perpetrated a swindle on the public. Although the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to justify the sausage by saying it is more palatable in this form, supposing every butcher displayed a notice saying there was a milk content in the sausage, does he suppose that would be a good thing? That is really what should be done, for I am certain the average housewife in future will have no idea that there is a large content of some mysterious form of tinned milk going into the sausage.
If nothing else, this debate has shown that the Minister of Food and his Department appear to be paying far more attention to the needs of the trade, and very little attention at all to the rights of the public as a whole. I should have thought one of the main purposes of the Department would be to see that the public got, as far as possible, good and decent food.
When listening to the Parliamentary Secretary—and he will correct me if I am wrong—I was surprised that he never


mentioned the consumer at all. As he does not correct me, presumably the consumer is of no interest. The gentlemen in Whitehall always know best, and the poor old consumer cannot get a word in edgewise.
I will not stand any longer between the House and the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) who will, no doubt, have something to say on the technical aspects of this matter, but I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying something to show that he pays more attention to safeguarding the rights and interests of the consuming public.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Crouch: I am pleased to support my hon. Friends in this Prayer because in my constituency we have been celebrated for a great period of time for two things. One is the production of good pigs which have made good sausages. Because they have made good sausages, my constituents have always been able to recognise what should be, and what has been always considered to be, a first-class sausage. We have several factories there. One of them, on account of the fact that at the beginning of this century it supplied a Royal house, has been able to call its sausage the Royal Gillingham Sausage ever since. I use the word "Gillingham," Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because there is another town in another county which is pronounced in another way. We also have a factory at Iwerneminster which was started for the express purpose of making first-class sausages by the late Mr. James Ismay. Until the commencement of the war, nothing was used in those sausages except first quality pork from eight score bacon pigs.
I am aware that since the commencement of the war these two celebrated sausage-making factories have had to comply with the Orders of the Ministry of Food. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that by putting milk in the sausage they would only be returning to a pre-war practice. I can assure him that milk has never been used in either of those factories in the production of their sausages. I should also like to inform the hon. Gentleman that only on Monday of this week, when I called at one of these sausage factories before coming up to this House, I inquired of the manager if he

had started putting any milk in his sausages. He informed me that they had never done so and he was not going to commence now; he would much rather sell a smaller amount of sausages than add milk and so depreciate the value of the product which he sold.
I want to refer to the question of dried milk in the sausage and I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if he will tell me, whether there is to be any difference in the price of the sausage which has skimmed milk put in it as compared with one which may contain dried whey. There are several qualities of dried milk—buttermilk, roller whey and spray skim milk. I have here their Ministry of Food prices. They are obtainable from the Milk Powder Pool of the Ministry of Food at Stanmore——

Mr. Willey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. To save myself from possible subsequent embarrassment, as I am being asked a question, may I call your attention to the fact that this Order does not deal with prices at all?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I had noticed that. This Order deals only with the content of the sausage.

Mr. Crouch: I was inquiring because there is a difference. The best spray skim milk costs twice as much as the roller whey. Is there to be any difference in the price of these sausages? If there is a difference in the price of the product that will be put into them, surely there must be a difference in the quality. Are we to have the lower quality of this product put into the sausage or the higher quality? If we are to have the lower quality put into it, then the public should be informed that the dried milk put in is of the lower quality and not of the higher quality. One of my hon. Friends asked where this milk was coming from.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that question was raised.

Mr. Crouch: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, someone did inquire where the milk was coming from, what type of milk, and was it a means of disposing of certain surplus dried milk that we have in this country. On 12th February I asked the Minister of Food how much milk he had been exporting during


the last two years, and he stated that there had been a considerable increase in the exports of dried milk in 1950 as compared with 1949. I am disturbed about how it will affect our export market if we put our dried milk into these sausages. The Minister told me that these exports of dried milk were very useful and that during the last two years he had found a useful way of disposing of the surplus milk of this country. Are we going to use our own milk in these sausages or are we going to use imported milk? If we are going to export our own dried milk and bring in other dried milk to use in these sausages, I cannot see what we have achieved.
The hour is late and other hon. Members are anxious to support this Motion, which is trying to preserve, at any rate in the county of Dorset, the type of sausage we have always been accustomed to. I hope it will not be long before we can enjoy sausages made with eight-score bacon pigs without any addition of anything else enforced by the Ministry of Food. In conclusion, it is most interesting that there is not one single hon. Member on the other side interested in the quality and type of sausage the housewives of this country have to buy.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I wish to protest against this Order for two reasons. It means a still further impoverishment of our diet, and, although the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise, it seems to me a proper part of our duty to register such a protest. Secondly, it is a grossly misleading document as it stands at the moment. It is misleading because it sets out the meat content as an inclusive proportion. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to refer to it as the restoration of pre-war practice. I feel sure the housewives wish it was a restoration of pre-war practice.
Hon. Members opposite frequently clamour for the protection of the consumer and demand that the consumer should know exactly what he is getting, and I seriously submit that this Order is, misleading. If we have to have such quantities of milk in the sausages delivered to us, surely this could have been done by laying down a maximum and minimum meat content. If the minimum meat content was followed, then it could

be set out that certain milk derivatives were also included in the sausage. Surely it could have been done in such a way that everybody would know what they were getting. At the moment, they do not know.
Apart from the Order being misleading in making people think they are getting so much meat when they are not, it is our duty to bring forward this point and give publicity to it, otherwise this would have slipped through with practically no notice being taken of it. I cannot help comparing this with the publicity given to the "Webb Sausage," this great and wonderful sausage, this magnificent ghost, this blithe spirit which passed through our larders and left not a sign behind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shakespeare."] We are entitled to raise this matter tonight in order that the public should realise that the "Webb Sausage" has been cancelled and this reduced standard sausage put in its place. My right hon. Friend suggests it is a "Willey Sausage." It would have been a wily sausage if we had not exposed its wiliness to the public gaze. No wonder the Parliamentary Secretary does not like our moving this Prayer, and loses his temper and calls us foolish.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman talks a good deal about publicity. As a matter of fact, a reference appeared in the "Sunday Express" before the Order appeared.

Mr. Carr: As one of my hon. Friends has suggested, I shall have to look for another breach of Privilege. Whatever may be said about publicity, the publicity which this has received compared with that which the supposed improvement in the "Webb Sausage" got was small, and I am prepared to let the public judge whether they would have the Opposition raise this or let it go through as the Parliamentary Secretary would have liked. I think perhaps that the housewives and the men who eat these articles will not think it was foolish and stupid of the Opposition to raise it, and I am prepared to let them judge on it. I submit that the public should know what we are doing in bringing this order before the House and giving it this publicity. I think this Order should be protested against because of the misleading impression that it gives.

12.52 a.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am glad to have an opportunity of joining in this debate because the last Government post I occupied was that now occupied by the hon. Gentleman who has been replying to the debate tonight— Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. As I sat here and listened to the debate, and to his explanation on certain Orders, I thought I should take the opportunity of congratulating him, because there have been difficult points. He has been asked for replies to points in great detail, and he has been extremely courteous and polite, and at no time has appeared to think in any way that the questions were in too much detail. I quite understood that he wanted carefully to point out that the article he read out was an article referring to what the trade wanted to do and was doing. I agree that he thinks and feels that some of my hon. Friends believe that the remarks he was reading were from the Ministry of Food and not from the trade. I realised his difficulty.
I know how anxious he was to make it clear that the facts about the particular sausage in the Order had been arranged with the trade, that the trade had already expressed its opinion, and that what he rea' out was the trade's opinion both in this country and America. That being so I thoroughly agree with him, because in the days I was in the Ministry of Food I knew of the difficulty of dealing with the various trades. There is difficulty about coming to a decision as to what one thinks ought to be done, if the particular trade with which one is dealing had another suggestion and their way of doing it was slightly different.
I know from my own experience of the difficulty of getting work done in cooperation with the trade. I understand that on this occasion there has been cooperation from the trade. On this occasion, as I gather—and the hon. Gentleman will interrupt me if I am wrong— the suggestion came from the trade and so far as I can make out it was like this. The trade communicated with the Ministry of Food, and suggested that sausages of this sort ought to be permitted. I think I am right in saying that, and that the suggestion first came from the trade and not from the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Willey: Mr. Willey indicated assent.

Miss Horsbrugh: Having got that perfectly clear, and in view of the assurance we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary that milk or milk powder was added to the pre-war sausage, therefore the trade could say to the Ministry of Food, as the Parliamentary Secretary has repeated here tonight, that the scheme was no real novelty. We had had that type of sausage to a certain extent in pre-war days, and there had been that type of sausage in other countries, including America.
One of our reasons for thinking that the Order ought to be discussed is that we have had no information as yet as to the quantity of these and of other sausages that are to be on sale. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that in pre-war days the majority of the best sausages were without the addition of such things as dried milk. As we have heard from one of my hon. Friends, there were certain makers of sausages who had a name and a reputation for particularly good sausages. I am not mentioning names, because from the trade point of view it is better that I should keep those things out; but there were certain types of sausages which were known to be particularly good. They had a name and a reputation here, and might even have been exported. As far as I know, those sausages did not have the addition of the milk powder or anything of that sort. We also know that in those days a certain proportion of the sausages did have this addition.
The Order has nothing to do with price, and I should be completely out of order if I were to mention that aspect, but I think I can say this and yet keep within order. In the days of pre-war sausages, there was a difference of price. Not only could the housewife, or whoever did the shopping, ask for a particular make of sausage, knowing that it did not contain milk powder and the like, but there was a differentiation in the price, so that the housewife also knew what she was buying. If she bought a sausage with these additions, she knew it and she paid less. Now, under the present scheme, I do not think she will get those advantages.
I dislike the words "consumer" and "foodstuffs" and some of the extraordinary language which is nowadays used—although some of the food does look rather like "stuff"; but it is a


serious point that the housewife, when buying her sausages today, will not know whether they contain this milk powder or whether, like those we have had in other times, they are without the milk powder.

Mr. Willey: I can assure the right hon. Lady that one of the best-known sausage manufacturers did, in fact, use milk powder in pre-war days, and that they have been kind enough to give advice to other manufacturers about the use of milk powder.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am very glad we have had that information and that one of the pre-war makers has volunteered to advise others how milk powder can be used and can make the sausage equally palatable. But my point still remains. It is important that people should know that some sausages are to have milk powder in them, and some are not. What I do feel strongly about is that the housewife should be able to know if the sausages she buys are of the one sort or the other. That point ought to be considered. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the nutritional value is the same. [Interruption.] I hear someone saying "bananas," and I should like to talk about the nutritional value of bananas, but that would be out of order.
However, we are told that the nutritional value of the sausages is the same, and that the palatability is the same. I should like to say one last thing about that because we have had it mentioned before. We have often been told that certain products are very good for us, with certain nutritional value, and that they are very palatable. Who tests the palatability? Somebody might test the palatability of these sausages and say he liked them, but here we have a guarantee of nutritional value and palatability; what is the means of testing the palatability?
We have gone on with this discussion, which I think has been useful; I never thought that I should have been called upon to talk of sausages and milk. We have often wanted strawberries and cream, and we are promised that we shall get the cream; but here we have sausages and milk—or sausages and no milk. I think it was a good thing that we should have made the effort to deal with this matter, for we have learned a good deal. I hope that the nutritional

value will be there, and that there will be agreement about the palatability, although I doubt it.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 26th February 1951, entitled the Meat Products and Canned Meat (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 314), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be annulled, "put accordingly, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Sparks.]

1.3 a.m.

Mr. David Renton: On a point of order. I should like, if I may, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to point out that I have down as the last Order on the Paper, a Prayer to annul the Utility Pram Rugs (Manufacture and Supply) (Amendment) Order, 1951, laid before this House on 24th February. If I understand the procedure of the House correctly, the fact that the adjournment has now been moved means that not only will my Prayer not be reached tonight but, also, that the four previous items on the Order Paper will not be called.
I have the right, and indeed the duty, as a Private Member to move to annul this Statutory Instrument, and I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker as to whether I can put this Prayer down at another early date and in such place on the Order Paper that it would be reached? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has, I regret, had another wasted evening, but through no fault of mine. Might I ask if what I have suggested is the correct procedure, or is my Prayer to go at the bottom of the list on another occasion?

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Butcher: Surely the House has some redress from the action of the Government Whip in moving the adjournment of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) was subjected to a severe rebuke by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House last night


because he postponed this Motion without giving notice to the President of the Board of Trade. Tonight the case is entirely reversed. Some hon. Members have attended the House for the purpose of taking part on this Order. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what remedy has a back bench Member who desires to participate in the debate on the Prayer in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon and other hon. Members because of this action of the Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The Adjournment Motion having been moved, it is my duty to put it to the House. No doubt the hon. Member's Motion will be carried over, I imagine, until tomorrow.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is a small point to which I should like to draw your attention. The Order concerned with my hon. Friend's Prayer has only seven more days to run. If the Prayer is put down for the next seven successive days, will it be in order for the Government to move the adjournment of the House and prevent the discussion of this Prayer? We do want to protect the rights of Parliament in this matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must deal with one point of order at a time. In reply to the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench, that, of course, is a hypothetical question.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: We have three Prayers down on the Order Paper this evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. After completing two, on which the discussion was curtailed, the third one, in fact. is now being prevented from being discussed. May I have your guidance as to whether a similar procedure could be followed after one Prayer has been put, and what is the limit and what is the curtailment which is open to the Government in the matter of Prayers and the rights of Private Members to exercise their duty?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I understand the Rules, it is permissible for the adjournment of the House to be moved after any order or between one order and another.

Sir Edward Boyle: Does that mean that Prayer procedure in this House can be killed by the majority on the other side of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have majority rule in this country. I would point out to hon. Members that any time they want to take up on these points of order deprives another hon. Member of some portion of the half-hour that is allotted to him for the Adjournment debate.

Captain Crookshank: It is not a question of majority rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; it is a question of the statute which allows Prayers to be offered within a certain number of days. If the Government can interfere with the exercise of Private Members' rights, or Front Bench Members as far as that goes, in praying, by moving the Adjournment of the House, it seems to me quite possible that by exercising that power, if that power exists, they will be able to override what the statute allows—that a Prayer should be made within a certain number of days.
In this particular case, we are drawing near the period when a Prayer can no longer be put down on the Order Paper. Therefore, the question does raise a very serious matter. It may not be within your power at the moment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to give an impromptu ruling, but we would have to reserve our right to raise the matter with Mr. Speaker in order to safeguard the rights of the House which have been given to the House by statute.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fully appreciate the point. The matter is I think really rather one between the Government and the Opposition than for the Chair but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly in order in raising it.

Captain Crookshank: It is not entirely a matter for the Government, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because, as I understand the privilege of the Chair, it is to see that the statutes are carried out, and that the rights of minorities are preserved. It is open to supporters of the Government to pray just as much as it is for Members of the Opposition. In the normal case, it is Members of the Opposition who put down the Prayers.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is always


putting his name to Prayers that have been put down by us, and that merely proves the point I am making, that it is open to all hon. Members of the House to pray. Normally, the Opposition takes upon itself the function of criticising the administrative decisions of the Government. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for you to bear this in mind if you should be in the Chair on a future occasion, that it may be necessary, too, for us to raise the matter with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bing: In view of the fact that your Ruling is so clearly set out in Erskine May, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would it not be possible to pass on to the Adjournment debate and leave hon. Gentlemen opposite the opportunity to study that work?

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE RATES

1.11 a.m.

Mr. Redmayne: It is a little difficult to pass to a comparatively parochial question after the arguments that have been put forward today. On 8th March I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he was aware of the unfair incidence of rates levied under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and if he would introduce new legislation. I would, of course, be quite wrong to discuss the second part of that, but the Minister, in his reply, did say to me that I did not say in what respect I considered the rates levied under the Land Drainage Act fell unfairly and, without discussing legislation, I would like to take this rather curtailed opportunity of giving one example in which these rates are unfair.
I would stress, first of all, that I want to deal only with that class of drainage that is covered by independent drainage districts and not, in fact, by catchment boards or, as they are now generally termed, the drainage functions of river boards. My example, as I have told the Minister, is the Fairham Brook Independent Drainage District, set up in 1937 under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Before I make my point I should describe the Fairham Brook district. It covers about 10 miles of a small tributary of the River Trent and it lies in a basin with low hills surrounding it. The total fall, from one end of the drainage district to the other, is only from 125 feet, at one

end, to 80 feet above sea level where the brook joins the River Trent. Altogether it is a very small affair.
The rate producing element of this drainage district is first the village of Bunny, all of which pays the rate except for one fairly large house and some park land. The second element is of course farm land throughout the district, exclusive of five or six farmhouses on the southern boundary of the district. The third element is some 300 houses in the village of Ruddington, part of, what I would describe as, a very large village. It is these 300 houses that form the subject of my complaint tonight.
The village stands beside the brook, which is here 98 feet above sea level, and the village at its highest point is only 130 feet, so the House will see that it is flat and rather featureless country. The boundary of the drainage district runs at that point, roughly, along the 100-ft. contour, presumably in accordance with what is known as the Medway Letter; and that contour does rather conveniently exclude all the old village of Ruddington and even a spur of the 100-ft. contour, which runs out to within 40 or 50 yards of that brook. North of the village, this 100-ft. contour runs up parallel with the brook and some distance from it, through a housing estate of 300 houses called the Maltby estate, and those houses are included wholly within the drainage district.
I need not say that the occupants of those houses view the payment of drainage rates with great disfavour. They cannot see why they should pay when nobody else pays, and the subject comes up at every meeting I hold in that village, so that I shall be heartily glad to see the matter settled. I am given to understand that my predecessor in that constituency gave the advice to one or two of these people that they should not pay the rate. That is not a very good suggestion, and I seek tonight to find a better answer.
Last November there came the usual periodic batch of summons for those who would not pay this rate, and I would like to quote one or two extracts from the local paper in regard to them.
Many of the 17 people in court, summoned for non-payment over periods from one to five years, maintained that they did not know the rate existed.


Some said the rate was unfair and they they could see nothing for their money.
A railway worker said he had to walk home through two feet of water when it rained. 'I do not think the rate is justified,' he said.
These extracts go on for about half a column of this local paper. At the end of this account the chairman of the magistrates is reported to have said that the bench thought it a great mistake that the rate should be allowed to run on for five years.
I cannot believe it is necessary that these arrears of rates should be left outstanding for so long, and thus create so much confusion in the householders' minds. This is the important thing. An official of the board told the paper after the court cases that the rate at Rudding-ton, in these 300 houses presumably, averaged 5d. a week, which is 21s. 0d. a year. They are small houses of no great value. There are some 15 houses to the acre, and therefore, if we look at it on an acreage basis—which used to be the basis of a drainage rate—it amounts to something like £15 to £16 an acre, which is most extraordinarily high.
Nor do householders get particularly good value for money. I can state, on my own experience, that the drainage in this area is extremely poor indeed, and they get very little benefit. In fact, they neither receive benefit nor avoid danger, for the danger of flooding is thrust upon them. The high figure of the rate sticks in their minds as a real injustice, in that it contrasts with the fact that the rest of the village pays nothing. What remedies are there? According to Section 18 of the Act, these people can petition if they can number one tenth of the owners of land. In fact, they could not number one tenth, and in any case they are not the sort of people who can go to the expense of a petition. Therefore, I have to represent their case for them.
I want to put this to the Parliamentary Secretary If I read the Land Drainage Act, Section 18 (1) aright, the Minister has the power, without petition, after due inquiry, to amend the boundaries of any drainage district. That is what I am asking for tonight. Supposing I were successful in my appeal, it would result in a loss of income for the drainage district and it would be a problem how the income would be replaced.
Without going into the detail of the argument about who should pay for drainage, lowlands or uplands, it is quite obvious to anyone who interests himself in this subject that all these matters are going to be very fully discussed in the report that is to be published—the report of the Central Advisory Committee, and that, therefore, if as a result of any action I ask for tonight, there should be any loss of revenue to the drainage district, quite obviously it would eventually adjust itself when legislation is put in hand following the report.
Before I sought the glare of publicity on this particular case I asked the National Association of Parish Councils for their views. I was told that this was by no means an isolated instance, and that they would welcome publicity to this case and to the fact that there were many others. They added the point, and it applies to this village, that this type of small householder does not get representation on the internal drainage districts because they do not own 10 acres or occupy 20 acres, or are neither the owners nor occupiers of land within the district which has an annual value of at least £30. They are in a rather poor way as far as representation is concerned.
I know, by reading the reports of the Land Drainage Act and the River Boards Act, that the Minister is an expert, and probably can shoot down very rapidly any arguments of mine. I have had to put them forward rather briefly because my time has been cut short. I ask, first of all, that the case of these 300 householders, who, I believe, are having to pay an unjust rate, shall be dealt with by the Minister under his powers under Section 18 of the Act by an adjustment of the boundaries of the district "Secondly, on the general problem. I ask that in the discussion which will arise from the report that this particular problem of the unfairness of rating due to the boundaries, will not be overlooked.

1.23 a.m.

Mr. Deer: I am glad to have an opportunity of speaking on this matter. The first Question I handed into the Table following my election in 1945, dealt with this very point. On this occasion I wish to take a different line from that taken by the hon. Member for Rush-cliffe (Mr. Redmayne). The Heneage Committee, which was set up to deal with


this matter, have taken far too long, and we are still awaiting their report. The constituency I represented in the last Parliament was the City of Lincoln, and I now represent the county constituency of Newark. Both in the Witham area and the Trent area many people are suffering from the delay in presenting this report.
The drainage boards base their rates on Schedule "A" and these assessments vary considerably. In addition to the difference in the assessments, as a result of the Medway report which was accepted in a court of law, certain standards were set with the result that those people who were subject to flooding have to pay a higher drainage rate. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that the moment he receives the Heneage report some effort will be made to assist those people who are suffering under existing legislation.

1.25 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): The bulk of the case we are considering tonight, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) has said, really turns upon the future of land drainage legislation, and much of what has been discussed would involve new legislation. I would be out of order in dealing with it, but perhaps I might have your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say to my hon. Friend that we have had the Heneage report and expect to be able to publish it within the next month or two. When that report is published, it can be discussed, and many of the questions about the incidence of the rates will fall to be discussed in the light of that report. Until then, there is little more I can do, and I certainly cannot discuss tonight the changes in the law that we might make.
To answer some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne), it is admitted that the 300 houses at Ruddington were built, as far as I can gather, in a place where they should not have been built, on land liable to flooding. The householders who live there have to put up with considerable inconvenience, to say the least of it. One is sorry that should be so. The justification for their paying a drainage rate is that when the houses were erected the owners and occupiers approached the drainage board about drainage works in

that area, particularly in relation to Pat-man's Dyke, a tributary of Fairham Brook. The point was made that if works were done there would be an improvement. Considerable work was done by the drainage authority to widen that dyke and improve its capacity for taking away water. I am told it was a costly scheme to the board and that the maintenance of the works done is also a matter of considerable cost.
The 1930 Act clearly lays down the formula under which people pay. It was put into practical effect by what has been called the Medway Letter. Clearly, occupiers and owners were receiving benefit or were being saved from danger as a result of the works that have been done. Therefore, there can be no doubt that under the existing Act they are being properly asked to pay a drainage rate towards the cost of maintaining and, in the case of the owners, towards the cost of doing the costly work that was carried out there. I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean to imply it, but I would like to make it clear that wherever blame appears to rest, it is not upon the drainage authorities, who have done their utmost to help with a situation that was not of their making and, of course, not of the making of the people who bought the houses or went to live in them.
As to why some in the village pay and others do not, I can well see the problem that would arise. It is a matter both of the formula and of the definition in the Act. I have not the Act with me, but my information is somewhat different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I will look it up in the morning but, as I understand it, the initiative does not lie with the Minister. The Minister has to act in a judicial capacity under the scheme either to define an area in the first place or to make alterations to it. The scheme has to be put up. The initiative rests with the river or catchment board concerned. The scheme has to go through various groups for consideration and objection. The Minister has to pronounce upon it in the event of their being objections, and therefore has to reserve a quasi-judicial capacity. If the objections are not withdrawn. then it is subject to Parliamentary procedure in this House. I am told that if it is felt that this area ought to be redefined, the initiative must clearly come from the river board. So it is to them


that the views expressed should be addressed, and no doubt they will take note of what has been said in this House.
On the question of householders' representation, here, again, my information is that the hon. Gentleman is unduly narrowly reading the term "land" in the Act. Those occupiers of houses of an annual value of more than £30, by Schedule A value, would be eligible for election as members of the board. I am told that of the existing board, the chairman, who has recently died, was a resident of Ruddington, and one other member, who is still happily alive, is also a resident of the village. Since the board covers six parishes, I cannot but think that they are well represented in having two out of seven members of the board from the one parish. Of course, if they feel they should have a greater representation, the remedy lies in their own hands. The register of electors is being reviewed next month, and residents ought to make sure they are on the register. Elections will take place next September, when they will be entitled to nominate Members for election to the board.
I have no time to spend on the general history of this question, as I should like to do. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that we are sympathetic and understand the problem. But there is little we can do about it. If redefinition is the point, then the initiative

lies with the river board. If the incidence of rating is the point, the initiative is with us in the end, but nothing can be done until we have considered the Heneage report. If it is a question of representation on the board, then it is for the residents themselves to take action to get better representation. As for the general problem, that is the responsibility of none of those who are involved now.
The hon. Member claimed that we had not prosecuted frequently enough. He said he could not understand why we have left it for five years without prosecution. If that represents the views of the residents, I can see that these views are conveyed to the authority who has to deal with the matter. Excusing the flippancy, there is nothing very much any of us can do. I think that for the drainage rate they are paying, householders are getting the benefit of some costly works done there and being maintained there. The best we can say is that the situation would be a great deal worse if these works had never been done.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour,.Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes to Two o'Clock.